Official spokesman says police scuffled with youths trying to greet King Abdullah Nervousness about the spread of “Arab spring” protests hit Jordan on Monday when the government moved to quash reports that demonstrators had attacked King Abdullah’s motorcade. Jordanian and western media quoted eyewitness accounts of vehicles in the royal convoy being hit twice by stones and bottles during a visit to the southern town of Tafileh, scene of demonstrations demanding the resignation of the government because of its failure to introduce reforms and fight corruption. Reports from the scene described clashes between crowds and the security forces, but the government quickly denied the story, saying the king had been warmly received. “This news is totally baseless,” said spokesman Taher Adwan. “There was no attack whatsoever with empty bottles and stones. What happened is that a group of young Jordanians thronged the monarch’s motorcade to shake hands with him. When police pushed them away, there was a lot of shoving.” The Amonnews website reported that at least 25 people had been injured by security forces. It was not in dispute that Abdullah had been on a fact-finding mission to inspect infrastructure projects and, according to the official Petra news agency, announce the creation of a £12.9m fund for job creation, infrastructure projects and the provision of free medical services. Tafileh has seen regular protests in recent weeks, including last Friday. The incident came as opposition groups reacted coolly to Sunday’s pledge by Abdullah to allow government minsters to be elected rather than appointed, at some unspecified point in the future. The Jordanian monarch became the latest Arab ruler to signal a readiness to implement reforms but gave no timetable for what would be a significant change. Abdullah said future cabinets would be formed according to the results of parliamentary elections. Currently he has the power to appoint the prime minister. Jordan saw unrest at the start of the Arab spring earlier this year but nothing on the scale of protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen or neighbouring Syria. Still, thousands took to the streets demanding better employment prospects, cuts in foods and fuel costs and an end to corruption. “We seek a state of democracy, pluralism and participation through political reforms … away from the dictates of the street and the absence of the voice of reason,” the king said in a televised speech. New legislation should “guarantee the fairness and transparency of the electoral process through a mechanism that will lead to a parliament with active political party representation”, he added. It should allow “the formation of governments based on parliamentary majority and political party manifestos in the future”. But he warned that sudden change could lead to “chaos and unrest”. The opposition, particularly the Islamic Action Front, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, has demanded sweeping reforms that would lead to a parliamentary system of government in which the premier would be elected rather than named by the king. In February the king sacked the prime minister, Samir al-Rifai, over the slow pace of reform and appointed Marouf al-Bakhit. Bakhit was asked to take “practical, swift and tangible steps to launch a real political reform process, in line with the king’s vision of comprehensive reform, modernisation and development”. In March, two protesters were killed and more than 100 injured when security forces intervened to end a clash between pro-monarchy and pro-reform protesters. “There was nothing new in the speech,” said Zaki Bani Rsheid, the head of the IAF political office. “The king has expressed hopes, as we have heard several times in the past, but he did not give specifics and there were no guarantees.” Labib Kamhzai, a political analyst, said: “The speech was positive on critical issues like electing a prime minister in the future. But we want to see more being done for wider civil liberties and less security interference in the affairs of the state.” Jordan King Abdullah Tunisia Arab and Middle East unrest Yemen Syria Egypt Ian Black guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Actually, it’s conservatives who ought to be afraid of Sarah Palin. Were she to win the Republican nomination, she would probably end the Republican party as a force in American politics for decades. But Hannity is undeterred. He is convinced in this segment where he laughs at liberal efforts 24,000 Palin emails that such a thing would a) never happen if the tables were turned; and b) is happening because liberals are just simply terrified of Sarah Palin. I spent some time reading through the emails this weekend. I focused on key points: the last 4 months where she was nominated as McCain’s running-mate, April 2007 when Trig was born, and the early days of her administration. Other than the one email with the Koch mentions, they paint a picture of someone who is fairly disengaged in the day-to-day need-to-know information, focuses on signature accomplishments but leaves their implementation and analysis to others, and who loves her Blackberry. She can spell fairly well, is best when she’s unhappy with someone in her administration or the press, and fights for socialist ideas like distributing royalties back to Alaskans from drilling in the state. If one thing surprised me, it was how moderate she was in certain respects. She didn’t deny climate change, fought hard so Alaskans would receive the maximum royalty dividend possible as early as possible, and especially fought for a gas pipeline through Alaska into Canada to boost revenues and business interests. Besides the gasline, she was passionate about a parental notification bill which failed in the state senate. Alternative energy was a big part of her agenda, too, at least to the extent that she paid lipservice to it. Equally obvious was how disconnected she was from the operations of the government she governed. Here’s a notable example . On June 30, 2008, Leo Von Scheben from the Alaska Department of Transportation wrote to Palin for approval of a transaction with a deadline of July 3rd. Her response? “Why must this be done in the next day or two?” To which he replied as patiently as anyone could that the deadline was um, July 3rd. That style is characteristic. In the nightmare where she is elected President, I can imagine her texting and tweeting everyone in the White House with “where are we on this or that” over and over but having no clue what they’re actually doing, because that’s how she ran Alaska. It’s one thing to manage things and another to hire staff, sit back and hound them via Blackberry followups about where they are on things. The other picture the emails paint is one where she’s pretty obsessed with her public image. She stomps her feet at mean bloggers and reporters, while playing up the PR wherever possible for the friendly ones. The term that came to mind for me was “spokesmodel”. It’s what she did best — the public events and the bells and whistles, but I don’t really see where she ever climbed down in the weeds far enough to actually know what it was she was cheering for half the time. Oh, and she just loves Sean Hannity to death. Nothing but good things, so there’s that. But Hannity is completely off base when he says liberals are afraid of Palin. It isn’t liberals. It’s the true conservatives who actually understand policy that should be afraid of what she can do, given enough populist momentum.
Continue reading …
Experts divided on whether ‘deeply complex’ procedure, previously only carried out on animals, is safe for humans A woman in Nottingham has agreed to donate her womb to her infertile daughter if doctors gain permission to attempt the groundbreaking transplant operation. Eva Ottosson, 56, the director of a lighting company, said she would offer her uterus to her 25-year-old daughter, Sara, who cannot have children because of a serious birth defect that left her without a womb. If the operation goes ahead – at a hospital in Sweden – Sara could conceive and carry a child in the same womb she herself was born from, but serious technical hurdles must be cleared if the procedure is to succeed.The operation is experimental and still at a premature stage in animal studies. Only a handful of mice have been born from transplanted wombs and little work has been done in larger animals, such as pigs, rabbits and monkeys. The deeply complex nature of the operation carries serious risks for the donor and recipient, leading some doctors to claim the procedure is not ready to be performed in humans. “As a mother you have all these questions: have you thought it through; do you know what you are doing; how do you feel about having the same womb that you have been developed in yourself,” Eva Ottosson told the BBC. “Of course it’s major surgery and has its risks, but I trust them, I know they know what they’re doing. I’m more concerned about my daughter and what the impact will be for her,” she added. Sara Ottosson, a biology teacher who lives and works in Stockholm, has a rare condition called Mayer Rokitansky Küster Hauser (MRKH) syndrome, also known as Müllerian agenesis , in which the reproductive system begins to grow but never fully develops. Women with the disorder are typically born without a womb and fallopian tubes, and have vaginal malformations. Little is known about the cause of the condition, but like many of the one in 5,000 people born with the disorder, Sara only became aware of the problem when she failed to begin menstruating as a teenager. While a small number of womb transplants have led to healthy births in experiments with mice, the procedure is almost completely untested in humans. In 2000, doctors in Saudi Arabia transferred a womb from a dead donor into a 26-year-old woman, but had to remove the organ three months later when it developed a blood clot and began to die. Sara Ottosson is one of seven patients who have undergone tests to assess their suitability for the operation under a programme run by Mats Brännström, a leader in the field of experimental womb transplants at Gothenburg University in Sweden. The operation could go ahead next year. If the operation is approved, Sara would have surgery to transplant her mother’s uterus before an IVF embryo created from her eggs and her partner’s sperm was transferred. A successful transplant would be temporary, with the uterus being removed two to three years later to avoid medical complications. Any birth would be via caesarean section.The operation is technically more demanding than a heart, kidney or liver transplant. Among the greatest risks are life-threatening haemorrhage and an insufficient blood supply to the womb. Sara has said she will consider adoption if the transplant operation does not go ahead or fails to result in a baby. Some 15,000 women of childbearing age in Britain were born without a uterus or had the organ damaged or removed by illness, such as cancer. In 2009, a team of surgeons and vets led by Richard Smith at Hammersmith Hospital in London reported several womb transplant operations in rabbits, though none of the animals became pregnant and carried young. The research has stalled in Britain through a lack of funding and scepticism from some in the medical community. The work is due to resume this year with support from an independent charity, Uterine Transplant UK. Medical research Health Health & wellbeing Ian Sample guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Russia, China and India concerned about ‘strategic partnership’ in which Americans would remain after 2014 American and Afghan officials are locked in increasingly acrimonious secret talks about a long-term security agreement which is likely to see US troops, spies and air power based in the troubled country for decades. Though not publicised, negotiations have been under way for more than a month to secure a strategic partnership agreement which would include an American presence beyond the end of 2014 – the agreed date for all 130,000 combat troops to leave — despite continuing public debate in Washington and among other members of the 49-nation coalition fighting in Afghanistan about the speed of the withdrawal. American officials admit that although Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, recently said Washington did not want any “permanent” bases in Afghanistan, her phrasing allows a variety of possible arrangements. “There are US troops in various countries for some considerable lengths of time which are not there permanently,” a US official told the Guardian. British troops, Nato officials say, will also remain in Afghanistan long past the end of 2014, largely in training or mentoring roles. Although they will not be “combat troops” that does not mean they will not take part in combat. Mentors could regularly fight alongside Afghan troops, for example. Senior Nato officials also predict that the insurgency in Afghanistan will continue after 2014. There are at least five bases in Afghanistan which are likely candidates to house large contingents of American special forces, intelligence operatives, surveillance equipment and military hardware post-2014. In the heart of one of the most unstable regions in the world and close to the borders of Pakistan, Iran and China, as well as to central Asia and the Persian Gulf, the bases would be rare strategic assets. News of the US-Afghan talks has sparked deep concern among powers in the region and beyond. Russia and India are understood to have made their concerns about a long-term US presence known to both Washington and Kabul. China, which has pursued a policy of strict non-intervention beyond economic affairs in Afghanistan, has also made its disquiet clear. During a recent visit, senior Pakistani officials were reported to have tried to convince their Afghan counterparts to look to China as a strategic partner, not the US. American negotiators will arrive later this month in Kabul for a new round of talks. The Afghans rejected the Americans’ first draft of a strategic partnership agreement in its entirety, preferring to draft their own proposal. This was submitted to Washington two weeks ago. The US draft was “vaguely formulated”, one Afghan official told the Guardian. Afghan negotiators are now preparing detailed annexes to their own proposal which lists specific demands. The Afghans are playing a delicate game, however. President Hamid Karzai and senior officials see an enduring American presence and broader strategic relationship as essential, in part to protect Afghanistan from its neighbours. “We are facing a common threat in international terrorist networks. They are not only a threat to Afghanistan but to the west. We want a partnership that brings regional countries together, not divides them,” said Rangin Spanta, the Afghan national security adviser and the lead Afghan negotiator on the partnership. Dr Ashraf Ghani, a former presidential candidate and one of the negotiators, said that, although Nato and the US consider a stable Afghanistan to be essential to their main strategic aim of disrupting and defeating al-Qaida, a “prosperous Afghanistan” was a lesser priority. “It is our goal, not necessarily theirs,” he said. Though Ghani stressed “consensus on core issues”, big disagreements remain. One is whether the Americans will equip an Afghan air force. Karzai is understood to have asked for fully capable modern combat jet aircraft. This has been ruled out by the Americans on grounds of cost and fear of destabilising the region. Another is the question of US troops launching operations outside Afghanistan from bases in the country. From Afghanistan, American military power could easily be deployed into Iran or Pakistan post-2014. Helicopters took off from Afghanistan for the recent raid which killed Osama bin Laden. “We will never allow Afghan soil to be used [for operations] against a third party,” said Spanta, Afghanistan’s national security adviser. A third contentious issue is the legal basis on which troops might remain. Afghan officials are keen that any foreign forces in their country are subject to their laws. The Afghans also want to have ultimate authority over foreign troops’ use and deployment. “There should be no parallel decision-making structures … All has to be in accordance with our sovereignty and constitution,” Spanta said. Nor do the two sides agree over the pace of negotiations. The US want to have agreement by early summer, before President Barack Obama’s expected announcement on troop withdrawals. This is “simply not possible,” the Afghan official said. There are concerns too that concluding a strategic partnership agreement could also clash with efforts to find an inclusive political settlement to end the conflict with the Taliban. A “series of conversations” with senior insurgent figures are under way, one Afghan minister has told the Guardian. A European diplomat in Kabul said: “It is difficult to imagine the Taliban being happy with US bases [in Afghanistan] for the foreseeable future.” Senior Nato officials argue that a permanent international military presence will demonstrate to insurgents that the west is not going to abandon Afghanistan and encourage them to talk rather than fight. The Afghan-American negotiations come amid a scramble among regional powers to be positioned for what senior US officers are now describing as the “out years”. Mark Sedwill, the Nato senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, recently spoke of the threat of a “Great Game 3.0″ in the region, referring to the bloody and destabilising conflict between Russia, Britain and others in south west Asia in the 19th century. Afghanistan has a history of being exploited by — or playing off — major powers. This, Dr Ghani insisted, was not “a vision for the 21st century”. Instead, he said, Afghanistan could become the “economic roundabout” of Asia. Afghanistan US foreign policy Hamid Karzai Taliban al-Qaida Foreign policy Nato US military United States Jason Burke guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Environmentalists say settlers working for traffickers aiming to launder money or build airstrips have burned down huge tracts Cocaine barons and farmers have been accused of cutting down swaths of Guatemala’s rainforest to carve out airstrips and to launder drug money, threatening biodiversity and ancient Maya ruins. More than a fifth of the 2.1m-hectare tropical forest – Latin America’s biggest after the Amazon – has been burned and cleared by settlers who are often working for drug traffickers, according to environmentalists and human rights groups. Official figures show the Maya biosphere reserve has lost 21% of its cover since being declared a protected zone in 1990, with impoverished peasants allegedly acting as an advance guard for wealthy drugs-linked farmers. Others put the number even higher. “The narcos use violence and poverty as tools to push into the reserve,” said Claudia Samayoa, director of Udefegua, a human rights advocacy group. “They cultivate land, put in some cattle, but often it’s just a front.” Poverty, malnutrition, unequal land distribution and the lack of state services gave many such communities little alternative, she said. A colour-coded map recently published by Guatemala’s National Council of Protected Areas (Conap) showed the western half of the reserve covered in orange and red blotches, representing areas burnt more than three times. Some 306,000 hectares were lost between 2001-06, it estimated. The incursions are threatening the habitats of hundreds of species of birds and mammals, including jaguars, pumas and tapirs, as well as 3,000 types of plants and Maya archaeological sites. “If left unattended, these threats could spread eastward, undermining the economic productivity of the reserve and deteriorating (its) crucial role as a biological corridor at the heart of the tri-national Maya forest of Guatemala, Belize, and Mexico,” said Roan Balas McNab, Guatamala programme director of the Wildlife Conservation Society. The reserve’s eastern half, comprising about 1m hectares and the main Maya ruins of Tikal and Mirador, has remained relatively unscathed thanks to greater protection. An earth-mound firebreak which divides the reserve has become a de facto “shield” which deters illegal interlopers entering the east. Nevertheless Jeff Morgan, executive director of the Global Heritage Foundation, said drug trafficking and cattle ranching could sabotage efforts to promote tourism and protect key archaeological sites. “Conservation of Mirador is critical for Guatemala and the world and provides the best alternative for legal jobs and income.” In the past three years Conap reclaimed 110,000 hectares on the eastern side from an alleged drug lord who “bought” the land from peasants who had been given a 25-year lease to cultivate crops in return for managing the forest. Incursions into the western side appear to be growing. Dozens, possibly hundreds of airstrips have been hewed from the jungle. Traffickers transfer cocaine from small planes to vehicles which cross into Mexico. Cattle ranches are the bigger threat. On the four-hour drive from Flores to El Naranjo there is no forest, only pasture and the occasional cow and horse. Two environmental groups, which declined to be identified for security reasons, said narcos use ranches to build roads and basic infrastructure and to launder money. Last month armed men massacred 27 labourers on a ranch because the owner, who was not there at the time, allegedly stole 2,000kg of cocaine from Mexico’s Zeta cartel. The state encouraged settlers to “tame” the forest in the 1960s before deciding it would be better to conserve it and promote tourism. A spokesman for Cofavic, a peasant rights advocacy group, said its members were being smeared to justify violent evictions. “They call us narco helpers but we are victims.” Guatemala Drugs trade Mexico Amazon rainforest Belize Rory Carroll guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Environmentalists say settlers working for traffickers aiming to launder money or build airstrips have burned down huge tracts Cocaine barons and farmers have been accused of cutting down swaths of Guatemala’s rainforest to carve out airstrips and to launder drug money, threatening biodiversity and ancient Maya ruins. More than a fifth of the 2.1m-hectare tropical forest – Latin America’s biggest after the Amazon – has been burned and cleared by settlers who are often working for drug traffickers, according to environmentalists and human rights groups. Official figures show the Maya biosphere reserve has lost 21% of its cover since being declared a protected zone in 1990, with impoverished peasants allegedly acting as an advance guard for wealthy drugs-linked farmers. Others put the number even higher. “The narcos use violence and poverty as tools to push into the reserve,” said Claudia Samayoa, director of Udefegua, a human rights advocacy group. “They cultivate land, put in some cattle, but often it’s just a front.” Poverty, malnutrition, unequal land distribution and the lack of state services gave many such communities little alternative, she said. A colour-coded map recently published by Guatemala’s National Council of Protected Areas (Conap) showed the western half of the reserve covered in orange and red blotches, representing areas burnt more than three times. Some 306,000 hectares were lost between 2001-06, it estimated. The incursions are threatening the habitats of hundreds of species of birds and mammals, including jaguars, pumas and tapirs, as well as 3,000 types of plants and Maya archaeological sites. “If left unattended, these threats could spread eastward, undermining the economic productivity of the reserve and deteriorating (its) crucial role as a biological corridor at the heart of the tri-national Maya forest of Guatemala, Belize, and Mexico,” said Roan Balas McNab, Guatamala programme director of the Wildlife Conservation Society. The reserve’s eastern half, comprising about 1m hectares and the main Maya ruins of Tikal and Mirador, has remained relatively unscathed thanks to greater protection. An earth-mound firebreak which divides the reserve has become a de facto “shield” which deters illegal interlopers entering the east. Nevertheless Jeff Morgan, executive director of the Global Heritage Foundation, said drug trafficking and cattle ranching could sabotage efforts to promote tourism and protect key archaeological sites. “Conservation of Mirador is critical for Guatemala and the world and provides the best alternative for legal jobs and income.” In the past three years Conap reclaimed 110,000 hectares on the eastern side from an alleged drug lord who “bought” the land from peasants who had been given a 25-year lease to cultivate crops in return for managing the forest. Incursions into the western side appear to be growing. Dozens, possibly hundreds of airstrips have been hewed from the jungle. Traffickers transfer cocaine from small planes to vehicles which cross into Mexico. Cattle ranches are the bigger threat. On the four-hour drive from Flores to El Naranjo there is no forest, only pasture and the occasional cow and horse. Two environmental groups, which declined to be identified for security reasons, said narcos use ranches to build roads and basic infrastructure and to launder money. Last month armed men massacred 27 labourers on a ranch because the owner, who was not there at the time, allegedly stole 2,000kg of cocaine from Mexico’s Zeta cartel. The state encouraged settlers to “tame” the forest in the 1960s before deciding it would be better to conserve it and promote tourism. A spokesman for Cofavic, a peasant rights advocacy group, said its members were being smeared to justify violent evictions. “They call us narco helpers but we are victims.” Guatemala Drugs trade Mexico Amazon rainforest Belize Rory Carroll guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Green groups react angrily to article by former FoE executive director Charles Secrett, insisting they remain ‘campaign-led’ • Read Charles Secrett’s article The green movement is “out-of-touch, ineffective and bureaucratic”, according to the campaigner who spent a decade leading Friends of the Earth in the UK , which celebrates its 40th anniversary on Wednesday. “Worryingly, in every major green group, managers, administrators, communicators and fundraisers outnumber campaigners and researchers. Interminable meetings, not action, are the order of most days,” wrote Charles Secrett, FoE executive director until 2003, in an article for the Guardian . He estimates UK groups like FoE, Greenpeace, RSPB and WWF, which have millions of members, spend over £100m a year. His comments have drawn an angry response from those leading today’s groups. With climate change having dropped down the international political agenda, and the global financial crisis prompting leaders and businesses to question green spending, the environmental movement is at an impasse, argued Secrett. He later told the Guardian: “The evidence of failure is there for all to see, as environmental problems are getting worse, not better.” Previous dips during recessions have seen the movement bounce back stronger than before, he said, but warned: “It is very tough now. There is no time left as the degradation of the environment has reached a tipping point.” Secrett praised new groups like UK Uncut, which has taken direct action on tax avoidance , and online campaigns like 38 Degrees . But he said groups, new or old, running their own single-issue campaigns in parallel would never achieve the critical mass needed to push humanity onto the path of sustainable development, by tackling global warming and the loss of habitats and the animals and plants in them. “If millions of people acted to hold politicians to account, that push would happen,” he said. “There is a crucial role for the environmental movement now in building a consensus for change. We can’t rely on politicians and business people to do that.” But he said current campaigners were too often “conservative and unimaginative”, adding “ambition is lacking through the fear of being seen to be too political”. Secrett’s comments prompted a strong reaction from the groups criticised, many of whom have been rethinking their campaign strategies this year. Ben Stewart, the head of media at Greenpeace, said: “I suppose I’m one of the PR people Charles is talking about. Right now I’m aboard one of our ships somewhere off the coast of Greenland where we’ve been hanging off an oil rig and stopping risky deep water oil drilling for several days. We’ve had 20 people arrested, more than half of whom are still in jail, and I know they’re very grateful for the staff back home, including the fundraisers, who made our campaign out here possible.” The current executive director of FoE, Andy Atkins, firmly rebuffed the criticism: “We’re not afraid to look at what we need to do differently: for 40 years we’ve been evolving so we keep winning campaigns. But some things haven’t changed – FoE was a campaign-led organisation when we started in 1971, and we remain so today. Together with our supporters we’ve been winning real victories [such as] getting the world’s first law to limit climate emissions , here in the UK, in 2008.” Other NGOs defended a more subtle approach to campaigning. Martin Harper, RSPB conservation director, said: “Shock tactics have their place, but no matter how loudly you shout, you will become background noise sooner or later. The most successful modern NGOs are those that know when to be a thorn in the side, and when to be a constructive partner. The RSPB is in the day-to-day job of conserving wildlife – and to do that we need to work closely with government and industry on a range of issues. ” However, Secrett’s attack was supported by some environmentalists. Author Mark Lynas said: “I agree the green movement is stuck in a rut, but I think the problem is deeper than mere professionalisation and endless strategy meetings in corporate NGO head offices. “Many ‘green’ campaigns, like those against nuclear power and GM crops, are not actually scientifically defensible, whilst real issues like nitrogen pollution and land use go ignored. The movement is also stuck in a left-wing box of narrow partisan politics, and needs to appeal to a broader mass of the public who are simply not interested in organic farming and hippy lifestyle choices. It needs to re-engage with science, as well as with the general public, if it is to remain relevant to the 21st century.” Secrett’s intervention also echoes comments made by another senior green figure, Jonathon Porritt, who earlier this year accused the green NGOs of “betrayal” over their lack of opposition to the proposed sell-off of public forests , now abandoned. “It demonstrates to me how completely out of touch our environmental NGOs have become,” he said. Greenpeace Activism Friends of the Earth Protest Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Uninhabited island made famous by the BBC reality series is in ‘safe hands’ after being sold to a family on neighbouring Harris The uninhabited Hebridean island of Taransay, made famous by the reality television series Castaway, has been sold to a local family only a fortnight after going on the market for £2m. Taransay, with its herds of sheep and wild deer, as well as cottages and a bunkhouse, was put up for sale late last month by owners Angus and Norman MacKay, brothers who live on the neighbouring island of Harris. Taransay is one of the largest islands in Scotland left wholly in private hands. It was made famous by the BBC series Castaway in 2000, and has lochs “teeming” with trout, “first-class” coastal and sea angling and abundant deer stalking. The island, one of the least spoilt and most beautiful places in the Western Isles, appeared to be a perfect purchase for a rich buyer interested in country pursuits. But instead it has been snapped up by another family on Harris. They are friends of the MacKays and already have “a long association with Taransay”. John Bound, from the selling agents CKD Galbraith, said the new owners – who have not been named – had no plans to change Taransay’s current use, mainly for self-catering holidaymakers and sheep farming. “Given its exceptional beauty and outstanding setting, it was no surprise that Taransay attracted so much interest and been sold in less than two weeks. The existing owners know the purchaser and all involved are delighted with the outcome and the island passes into safe hands,” Bound said. “There will no doubt be a number of disappointed parties who would have liked to bid, but it is fitting that Taransay is now in the new ownership of somebody closely acquainted to the area who will preserve the current management of the island.” The island, which is effectively two smaller islands connected by a sandy isthmus on the edge of the Atlantic, comprises about 3,445 acres. Unusually, every part of the island and building is owned solely by the new buyers, including a recently upgraded farmhouse, the old school chalet and a bothy for holiday use. The BBC series transformed Taransay from a little-known holiday destination to one of the most recognised names in the Hebrides. Up to 9 million viewers watched for a year as an initial group of 36 “castaways”, including families with children, tried to survive unaided in the harsh landscape and grow their own food. The film-makers refurbished derelict buildings, allowing the MacKays to turn the properties into holiday lets after the series ended. Their father, John MacKay, bought Taransay in 1967 for £11,000. It was once home to hundreds of islanders and three townships but has been uninhabited for decades. Scotland Property Reality TV Television guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Attack by stone and bottle throwing youths hours after King Abdullah II announced political reforms is denied by government The motorcade of King Abdullah II of Jordan has reportedly come under attack from protesters throwing bottles and stones during a visit to a town in the country’s south. Abdullah was unhurt in the attack, which came hours after he bowed to popular demands for political reform, agreeing to have an elected prime minister from a parliamentary majority replace the current method of appointing the cabinet. An unnamed security official said young people attacked the motorcade in two different areas in Tafila, 125 miles south of the capital Amman. A government spokesman, Taher Edwan, later rejected the account. “This news is totally baseless,” he said. “There was no attack whatsoever with empty bottles and stones. “What happened is that a group of young Jordanians thronged the monarch’s motorcade to shake hands with him.” He said that when police “pushed them away, there was a lot of shoving”. A palace official who accompanied Abdullah gave a similar account: “It was a gesture of welcome, not an attack.” Abdullah was on a fact-finding trip to inspect infrastructure projects and hear his subjects’ demands. The king has agreed to elected cabinets but gave no timetable, saying that sudden change could lead to “chaos and unrest”. The move represented a big concession to demands from activists who have taken to the streets in six months of protests to demand a greater political say. Many Jordanians want the king to loosen his absolute grip on power, which includes appointing prime ministers and cabinets. In the televised speech on Sunday, marking his 12th year as Jordan’s ruler, Abdullah said future cabinets will be formed according to an elected parliamentary majority. He also promised further changes without giving much detail, saying that a royal commission is now exploring “possible amendments” to the constitution appropriate for Jordan’s “present and future”. When Abdullah became king in 1999, he floated the idea of a constitutional monarchy similar to the British system, but little has been said on the subject since. Jordanians have been demanding a new elected parliament that would replace one widely seen as docile. However, a small group of activists says it wants the king to relinquish all his power and become only a figurehead. But major political parties such as the powerful Muslim Brotherhood have rejected such proposals, calling the king a “stabilising influence”. Abdullah said the changes would be implemented based on the recommendations of a national dialogue committee, which recently proposed laws governing elections and political parties. The committee is also reviewing economic legislation to tackle official corruption, nepotism and bureaucracy. The Jordanian government has lifted restrictions on public assembly, allowing protesters to demonstrate freely. But it has said it needs time to enact laws on political freedoms, including those addressing election and political parties. Abdullah sacked his prime minister in February, responding to protesters’ complaints that he was insensitive to their economic hardships. Protests in Jordan have been relatively smaller and generally more peaceful than elsewhere in the Middle East, although one person died during a protest in March. One man burned himself badly in April after setting himself on fire outside the prime minister’s office . King Abdullah Jordan Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Protest Mark Tran guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Melissa Bell and Elizabeth Flock at the Washington Post have the details on this elaborate hoax which went awry as skeptical people began noticing inconsistencies and started combing the internet for more information. Video above is from BBC Newsnight on Wednesday, featuring a woman from London who had hundreds of her Facebook images stolen so that MacMaster could create a more elaborate and convincing ruse. The photo at bottom is from Thomas J. MacMaster ‘s own Facebook page. MacMaster had lived in Stone Mountain, Georgia. In recent days, the world has followed closely the saga of Amina Araff, the blogger who presented herself online as “A Gay Girl in Damascus” and who drew attention with her passionate writings about the Syrian government’s crackdown on Arab Spring protesters. Those writings stopped last Tuesday, and a posting to the blog, ostensibly written by a cousin, said she had been hauled away by government security agents. News of her disappearance became an Internet and media sensation. The U.S. State Department started an investigation. But almost immediately skeptics began asking: Has anyone ever actually met Amina? Two days after her disappearance, images presented on her blog as being of Amina were revealed to have been taken from the Facebook page of a London woman. And on Sunday, the truth spilled out: The gay girl in Damascus confessed to being a 40-year-old American man from Georgia. The persona he built and cultivated for years — a lesbian who was half Syrian and half American — was a tantalizing Internet-era fiction, one that Tom MacMaster used to bring attention to the human rights record of a country with severe media restrictions that make traditional reporting almost impossible. On Sunday, MacMaster wrote an apology on his blog, “While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on thıs blog are true and not mısleading as to the situation on the ground. I do not believe that I have harmed anyone — I feel that I have created an important voice for issues that I feel strongly about.” Dumbass. MacMaster (“Amina”) also had what was described in the media as a girlfriend in Montreal . Isn’t that just lovely…. enlarge
Continue reading …