Exiled Boris Berezovsky sues former friend Roman Abramovich over business deal gone sour It was the clash of the oligarchs. On one side of the courtroom was Boris Berezovsky, Kremlin critic, political exile, and sworn enemy of Vladimir Putin. On the other, Roman Abramovich, the billionaire owner of Chelsea football club, and a man known for his fondness for yachts. In the middle a lot of bodyguards wearing very dark shades. Once close friends, and alleged beneficiaries of Russia’s controversial privatisation programme, the two men have been locked in an ugly public feud for more than a decade and have steadfastly avoided each other. But on Monday they came face to face at the high court in London in a case that could set a multibillion-pound record for private litigation in the UK. The court heard that Abramovich “blackmailed and betrayed” Berezovsky, his former mentor, and put “wealth and influence” above “loyalty and friendship”. Berezovsky claims Abramovich “intimidated” him into selling his shares in the Russian oil company Sibneft at a fraction of their true value. Berezovsky is claiming in excess of $5bn (£3.2bn) in damages from Abramovich over the Sibneft deal, his barrister Laurence Rabinowitz QC said. Berezovsky, who fled Russia in 2000 after falling out with Putin, who was then president, also wants at least $564m in compensation for another deal involving the Russian aluminium company Rusal. The case was being heard in the gleaming new Rolls building of the commercial court in Fetter Lane, before Mrs Justice Gloster. Both Russians sat at opposite ends of the packed courtroom number 26, with Abramovich listening to the proceedings in Russian via headphones. They ignored each other. Their entourages included supporters in shiny suits, Russian assistants dressed in black, relatives, friends, and so many lawyers that some were forced to sit at the back of the court. Scheduled to last 12 weeks, the case has attracted some of the bar’s biggest names, including Jonathan Sumption QC, acting for Abramovich. Berezovsky is likely to give evidence on Thursday. Abramovich will take the stand, speaking in Russian, in early November. The case promises to shed light on Russia’s murky privatisation programme in the 1990s, during which a small group of well-connected businessmen – subsequently dubbed oligarchs – became fantastically rich. It is also likely to illuminate the opaque connection between money, politics and power in Russia, both in the court of former president Boris Yeltsin, and in the more sinister era of Putin, the current prime minister who now looks set to return to the Kremlin next year. Rabinowitz told the judge that both men had worked together to create Sibneft in 1995 and they had become good friends. The partnership had also included the businessman Arkady “Badri” Patarkatsishvili, Georgia’s wealthiest man. “This is a case about two men who, and this is common ground, worked together to acquire an asset – that is Sibneft – that would make them wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most people,” Rabinowitz said. The relationship continued until Putin, whom Berezovsky helped propel into the Kremlin, became Russia’s leader. In the process they became and remained good friends, said Rabinowitz, until “Berezovsky, who had adopted a high political profile in Russia, not least through his control of certain media outlets, fell out with those in the Kremlin and was forced to leave his home and create a new life abroad.” The barrister said Abramovich was left with the choice of remaining loyal to his old friend or seeking to “profit from his difficulties”. He said that Abramovich picked the latter route, and told Berezovsky that he had to sell his interests in Sibneft at a knockdown price. If he refused, people in the Kremlin led by Putin would expropriate them, Abramovich allegedly warned. “Mr Putin had come to regard Mr Berezovsky as an enemy,” Rabinowitz said. Abramovich denies that Berezovsky or Patarkatsishvili were ever his business partners. He insists that he was the sole owner of Sibneft, plus had a sole share of Rusal, subsequently sold on to another Russian tycoon, Oleg Deripaska. He says he merely “hired” Berezovsky, a key figure in Yeltsin’s entourage, to provide political cover – known by the Russian word krysha (roof) – essential to any businessman wishing to survive in the lawless 1990s. Berezovsky provided services “basically criminal in nature”, Abramovich’s lawyers allege. These included “corrupt political patronage” and protection from “Chechen criminal gangs”. Berezovsky’s barrister conceded that the case was “incredibly complex”. He said that many of the crucial agreements had been made verbally – the preferred method, he said, for blackmailers. Another layer of difficulty stems from the fact that several of the protagonists are dead. Patarkatishvili died of a heart attack in 2008, prompting a bitter continuing legal battle between his relatives and Berezovsky. The British lawyer Stephen Smith, meanwhile, who took notes of a crucial business meeting in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, died in a mysterious helicopter crash in 2004. There was enough material, however, to illustrate that Abramovich had “whitewashed” Berezovsky from the picture, the barrister said. He added: “The case is rather lacking in contemporanous documents. But some documents stand out like a beacon.” Russia Europe Boris Berezovsky Roman Abramovich Luke Harding guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Experts including 40 directors of public health say government’s health and social care bill will cause ‘irreparable harm’ More than 260 senior doctors and public health experts are calling on the House of Lords to throw out the government’s health and social care bill, saying it will do “irreparable harm to the NHS, to individual patients and to society as a whole”. The signatories include Professor Sir Michael Marmot, the author of several reports on the links between wealth and health that suggest children born into poverty are penalised for life. Marmot has until now not been openly critical of the coalition’s approach, and instead has offered encouragement for David Cameron and Andrew Lansley’s apparent enthusiasm for public health. But Marmot and others in senior positions have now concluded the bill will damage all aspects of the health service. “While we welcome the emphasis placed on establishing a closer working relationship between public health and local government, the proposed reforms as a whole will disrupt, fragment and weaken the country’s public health capabilities,” says the letter. “The government claims that the reforms have the backing of the health professions. They do not. Neither do they have the general support of the public.” The letter details the harms the experts believe the health reform bill will do. “It ushers in a significantly heightened degree of commercialisation and marketisation that will lead to the harmful fragmentation of patient care; aggravate risks to individual patient safety; erode medical ethics and trust within the healthcare system; widen health inequalities; waste much money on attempts to regulate and manage competition; and undermine the ability of the health system to respond effectively and efficiently to communicate disease outbreaks and other public health emergencies,” the letter says. In their judgment, the signatories say, the bill “will erode the NHS’s ethical and co-operative foundations” and “will not deliver efficiency, quality, fairness or choice”. The signatories include around 40 directors of public health from around the country who have taken the difficult decision to go public with their concerns. There are also two senior members of the Faculty of Public Health, one of whom, Dr John Middleton, is a vice-president. Other well-known names include Professor John Ashton, director of public health in Cumbria, and Professor Michel Coleman from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Dr David McCoy, consultant in public health medicine at the Inner North West London primary care trust, one of the organisers of the letter, said he was surprised at the number of people prepared to sign. “I think if we had continued to collect signatures, I’m quite sure we would have collected another 200 It is having a snowball effect,” he said. “I think the feeling is incredibly strong.” There was a lot of debate about whether we should call for outright rejection or amendments, but there is a feeling the whole package of reforms is harmful and we need to express our position in the strongest terms. I think there was a feeling the forthcoming reading in the House of Lords is the last chance of minimising the harm and damage.” The public health community has not spoken out in this way before. “I think there has been an attempt to work with the reforms and work behind the scenes to optimise the proposed reforms,” said Dr McCoy. Dr Middleton said there was no great opposition to the planned move to place public health services such as smoking cessation within local authorities. “But the letter is a recognition from the public health community that the reforms proposed around the NHS are deeply damaging to the public health in themselves,” he said. There was concern that they would lead to inequalities in healthcare and less access for the poorest and most deprived to the services they need. “The experience of other countries that have ‘liberated’ their health systems has resulted in very poor health services for their communities. I’m thinking of Russia and China where a free market in health resulted in major falls in life expectancy and systems that had provided some safety net cover have failed,” he said. Commenting on the letter, published in the Daily Telegraph on the eve of health secretary Andrew Lansley’s address to the Tory party conference, shadow health secretary John Healey said: “David Cameron is in denial, both about the damage his plans are doing to the NHS and the strength of opposition to his health bill. “There is no mandate for the bill, either from the election or the coalition agreement. With the government having railroaded its plans through the Commons, heavy responsibility is now going to be shouldered by the Lords.” NHS Health policy Health Doctors Public services policy House of Lords Sarah Boseley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Nearly 2,000 teachers responded to a Guardian Teacher Network survey asking how they feel about their jobs. Many wrote: ‘I love teaching but…’ Disrespected, often bullied, fed up with governments that don’t trust them and despairing of the decline in parenting skills, you’d think teachers would be scouring the jobs columns for other careers, but, according to the Guardian Teacher Network survey published today, the reason they aren’t in larger numbers is because so many of them still love teaching. If there is a single message that sings out loud and clear, it is a plea from teachers to be treated as professionals, rather than infantilised by short-termist governments and political philosophies. Teachers who have come from other professions wonder openly about the lack of trust in their professionalism. One former solicitor, now questioning the sense of the career switch, said: “There is a profound lack of respect by senior staff and parents for the quality of work and quantity of work undertaken by teachers. “I have never before worked in a place where I have not been treated as a professional. My every move is monitored. I am not trusted to do the job I have trained and gained qualifications to do. It has had a great impact on my confidence to do the job. As a solicitor I was trusted to do my job once I had the qualifications and experience, why is this not the case in teaching?” Nearly 2,000 teachers – most of them members of the growing Guardian Teacher Network – filled in the survey during late August and September. There was a free text box at the end for extra comments and it was here that teachers, like that former solicitor, poured out eloquent testimony of what it feels like to be a teacher in the UK today. In the first five hours after the survey went live, 600 forms were returned, many with very detailed comments. Time and time again, they began: “I love teaching but …” or “This is the best job in the world but …” And they were big buts – government targets and interference, senior managers who bullied colleagues to achieve those targets, Michael Gove and Conservative party policy, league tables, Ofsted, bureaucracy, unsupportive parents, declining parenting skills, deteriorating student behaviour, disappearing pensions and lack of respect. There are relatively few references to wanting more money for the long hours teachers work – a third cited working weeks in excess of 50 hours – more often there is a straightforward recognition that they have a vocation to teach and they came into teaching because of that drive. The despairing voices are there – those who can’t wait to retire (“Three years to go and counting…”) and those who yearn to get away (“I am an NQT. I’m already looking forward to a way out”) – but they are not the loudest. Most simply feel frustrated that they are not trusted to do their job. Cary Cooper, professor of organisational psychology at Lancaster University, who has done major studies on workplace stress, is not surprised by the findings. “Global evidence is clear – lack of control and autonomy in your job makes you ill. It is stressful to be in an occupation where you feel you have people looking over your shoulder and where you can be named and shamed. All those characteristics were there in teaching 10 years ago, but it is worse now because jobs in the public sector are no longer secure. “Teachers want autonomy and respect – the people who go into it have a real vocation; they don’t do it for the money.We should train all our headteachers in engaging their staff in the decisions that affect their jobs, and the government needs to stop dictating top-down to teachers and instead discuss ideas with teachers. It should then undertake systematic pilots of ideas, which are evaluated. It needs to start treating teachers as professionals.” So, to some of the key statistics. Around 85% of respondents felt teachers had less respect from society in the UK than in some other countries. Just over half of the sample had considered leaving teaching and of these, 62% quote excessive government interference in schools as the reason; 50% blamed student behaviour; 44% workload or exhaustion; 30% parent behaviour; 25% lack of career prospects and just 22% had considered leaving for a job where they could earn more money. A massive 90% complained of teacher bullying – nearly two-thirds cited bullying from senior management, just over half cited parents as the aggressors, 40% students and 35% colleagues. Around 60% of the teachers said that student behaviour had become worse during their teaching career, with teachers outside London more likely to say it. And the theories offered for the decline in student behaviour? Teachers point a sharp finger at the shape of British society. 81% blamed a decline in the nuclear family and 75% the growing influence of dubious and negative role models for young people. Just under half felt parents had become less supportive of teachers during their time in the profession, with teachers in the south-west of England and in Scotland most likely to say it. Asked why they felt they had less parental support, 79% of this part of the sample pointed at declining parenting skills; 65% said parents’ perceived value of education had diminished; 59% said that long hours at work had affected the time parents spent with their children. A picture of some senior management as unsure of their rights, or not wanting to get into trouble, also emerged, with 68% blaming worsening student behaviour on lack of support in imposing discipline from senior staff. But care for their students shines through, with appeals for more vocational opportunities and concerns that some students are put on courses that will meet school targets rather than their individual needs. Only 10% in the survey wanted to see GCSEs abolished, but 65% wanted to see an end to Sats. Just 22% thought their career prospects were good. Only 14% wanted to be headteachers (“Many are very reluctant to aspire to headteacher posts because too much is now expected”) and 44% had considered teaching abroad. A DfE spokesman said: “We’re making teachers’ lives easier and stopping breathing down their necks – by slashing bureaucracy and thousands of pages of statutory guidance; we’re giving them greater freedom over the curriculum; and transforming the quality of career development training. Good schools know best – not politicians or bureaucrats.” Casestudy Daniel Hartley has been teaching for three years. He studied for his PGCE in secondary history at the University of Exeter and is head of history and religious studies at Chulmleigh community college in Devon “There is so much that frustrates many teachers. It feels as if we face a constant tide of change, forced on us from above.New governments always feel they have to put their own stamp on education – for me this means that while we wait for the new curriculum to come out in 2014, I am wary even of spending cash on text books – there is no certainty. Everything seems to change at a rate of about 200mph so it is a constant struggle to keep up with new initiatives, which are often just regurgitated old ones with a sexy new name. My school is pretty good so I don’t suffer with many of the problems that I know other teachers do. What I find annoying is that the government and others don’t take into account the hours of paperwork, the re-jigging of schemes of work, professional development sessions and effort that go into reacting to these changes … that then suddenly are made worthless by a white paper. It can be totally exhausting. I also find alarming the focus on league tables and targets. For my GCSE students we use a computer program to predict grades. This takes no account of social problems the students might face and so can often spit out a grade that might not be achievable. For example, if you have a student who just doesn’t turn up, you still have to give him/her a grade and when they don’t achieve that, the quality of your teaching is scrutinised. It is tough on them, too, to be given expectations they can’t meet. You still can’t help but look at your targets sometimes after the exams and question if you still have the ability to teach. That constant feeling that you have to defend yourself can be demoralising. Teachers can feel totally undervalued and even bullied when targets aren’t met. I feel we’re missing a trick. Surely if we support colleagues rather than berate them, and focus on delivering engaging lessons, we will have a much happier staff whose love of what they do will rub off on the pupils. I feel sad that many teachers are now, more than ever before, expected to be social workers, parents and teachers all rolled into one as there is a lack of parental support. Children are hoofed into schools and we have to do the groundwork of teaching them manners and how to behave properly. Surely the school should just be one link in the chain? Parents, teachers and society at large all have a role to play in producing rounded, responsible members of society.” • For more details or to join the Guardian Teacher Network, see http://teachers.guardian.co.uk/ Wendy Berliner is head of the Guardian Teacher Network Teaching Teachers’ workload Education policy Schools Wendy Berliner guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Mahmoud Jibril and Mustafa Abdul-Jalil to step down as post-Gaddafi government takes shape Libya’s new leaders are poised to declare the country’s “full liberation” is complete and appoint a new transitional government. The new government regards the war as in effect won even though there is still heavy fighting in former leader Muammar Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte, one of the last loyalist holdouts, and Bani Walid still remains under the control of pro-Gaddafi forces who are besieged inside. The declaration and the formation of a new government – with elections planned after eight months – are intended to bring an end to an increasingly dangerous political vacuum in Libya. The interim prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril, and the head of the National Transitional Council (NTC), Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, plan to step down, having pledged to take no further part in the country’s future government. The NTC constitution specifies that no temporary government figures should serve in any future elected Libyan government. The latest attempts to bring about an end to the developing political crisis in Libya comes as military leaders described the latest push on Sirte, which began on Monday after a two-day truce, as the “final assault”. Anti-Gaddafi fighters backed by Nato aircraft have made slow progress in capturing Sirte, facing fierce resistance from former regime loyalists inside the town where weeks of fighting have triggered a humanitarian crisis among its civilian population. It has become clear in the past few days, however, that the country’s new rulers are now anxious to bring the siege of Sirte to a quick conclusion. Originally it had been understood that no new government would be announced until all of the remaining pockets of pro-Gaddafi resistance had been liberated, including the town of Bani Walid. But Abdul-Jalil told a press conference in Benghazi that, unlike the coastal city of Sirte, the landlocked Bani Walid did not pose a threat to Libya’s borders. “We ask Libyans to understand that this is a sensitive and critical stage,” he said, referring to growing concern over delays in appointing a government to lead the country into its first elections since the fall of the Gaddafi regime. It emerged that a commander from the city of Misrata, understood to be Salem Jouha, is expected to be the country’s defence minister after liberation. Misrata has distanced itself from the NTC in recent weeks and Libya’s new rulers have struggled since the fall of Tripoli to reconcile all the competing political interests. Friction remains between more secular figures and Islamists such as Abdel Hakim Belhaj, head of Tripoli’s military council, who wrote in the Guardian last week that Islamists should not be sidelined in the new Libya. The renewed political and military focus on Sirte comes as a Red Cross convoy was prevented from reaching the town on Monday to deliver supplies to the Ibn Sina hospital. NTC fighters have denied a claim they are to blame for starting the shooting. With no electricity, and shortages of food, medicine and drinking water, aid groups warned of an impending humanitarian disaster in the city. Several thousand people have managed to escape – some taking up to 10 days to get out – but other civilians are still trapped in Sirte, which continues to be bombed by Nato aircraft and shelled by fighters of the new government. NTC troops said on Monday they now controlled most of Qasr Abu Hadi, the small town close to Sirte where Gaddafi was born in a tent in 1942. Libya Middle East Africa Muammar Gaddafi Arab and Middle East unrest Peter Beaumont guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Did Jamie Dimon Make A Thoughtful Gift — Or Did His Bank Just Turn The NYPD Into Rent-A-Cops?
October 3, 2011 No Comment
enlarge What a lovely, thoughtful thing to do, to make such a public minded gift. Of course, the more cynical among us might suspect Jamie Dimon simply hired the NYPD as his company’s own special rent-a-cops. Via Odd Man Out: JPMorgan Chase recently donated an unprecedented $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation. The gift was the largest in the history of the foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen security in the Big Apple. The money will pay for 1,000 new patrol car laptops, as well as security monitoring software in the NYPD’s main data center. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly sent CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon a note expressing “profound gratitude” for the company’s donation. “These officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe,” Dimon said. “We’re incredibly proud to help them build this program and let them know how much we value their hard work.” From Naked Capitalism : Now readers can point out that this gift is bupkis relative to the budget of the police department, which is close to $4 billion. But looking at it on a mathematical basis likely misses the incentives at work. Dimon is one of the most powerful and connected corporate leaders in Gotham City. If he thinks the police donation was worthwhile, he might encourage other bank and big company CEOs to make large donations. And what sort of benefits might JPM get? It is unlikely that there would be anything as crass as an explicit quid pro quo. But it certainly is useful to be confident that the police are on your side, say if an executive or worse an entire desk is caught in a sex or drugs scandal. Recall that Charles Ferguson in Inside Job alleged that the use of hookers is pervasive on Wall Street (duh) and is invoiced to the banks. Or the police might be extra protective of your interests. Today, OccupyWallStreet decided to march across the Brooklyn Bridge (a proud New York tradition) to Chase Manhattan Plaza in Brooklyn. Reports in the media indicate that the police at first seemed to be encouraging the protestors not only to cross the bridge, but were walking in front of the crowd, seemingly escorting them across. The wee problem is that the police are in the street, and part of the crowd is also on the street (others are on a pedestrian walkway that is above street level). That puts them in violation of NYC rules that against interfering with traffic. Note the protesters were aware of the rules; they were careful to stay on the sidewalk on the way to the bridge. Over 700 of the marchers were arrested, and the media has a rather amusing “he said, she said” account, with OccupyWallStreet claiming entrapment and the cops batting their baby blues and trying to look innocent. Nothing as crass as an explicit quid pro quo! Just a little something to remind the cops that some people deserve more protection than others, and are likely to be very grateful for it. More here .
Continue reading …
The artist displays objects from the museum alongside his own works in his exhibition The Tomb of the Unknown Craftsman The first object you see on entering Grayson Perry’s exhibition at the British Museum , which opens on Thursday, is a large pot by him decorated with images of visitors to the show and their imagined reasons for coming. “I need to have my negative prejudices confirmed,” reads one speech bubble. “I just wanted to satisfy myself that I am more clever than this charlatan,” reads another. Perry, as he gave the Guardian a pre-opening tour of the exhibition , said: “I just thought it would be better to get all that stuff over with. I know what kind of shit goes down.” It is a typically knowing and cheeky intervention from the Turner prize winner, who persuaded the British Museum to let him create an exhibition by choosing objects from its stores alongside examples of his own work, which spans pottery, tapestry and, in the spectacular finale to the show, a vast cast-iron sculpture in the form of a ship, called The Tomb of the Unknown Craftsman – which is also the title of the exhibition. The show is not an art-historical primer, or a didactic exhibition about the way Perry makes work or thinks. “Some of the labels are quite bold,” said Perry, “in their lack of information.” Rather, it is a tour into Perry’s imagination and intuition – even, perhaps, his subconscious. “Don’t look too hard for meaning,” he said. “We are all a bit mad, and this is me: it’s just I’m allowed to go mad in the British Museum.” The visitor, he said, will be “wandering around in my head”. If there is a unifying thread to the exhibition, it is perhaps about the power of objects – both that which is automatically conveyed by their being placed in a museum, but also their power as religious, ritual or fetishistic artefacts. Creepily, here is a gold earring, “origin and date unknown” as the label primly states, with a chunk of withered ear attached – snatched from a living person? Snapped off a mummified corpse? Nearby, Perry has placed another severed body part, if anything more disturbing than the ear: his own ponytail, which he cut off in 1985, and placed in a little ceramic coffin he fashioned. One of his favourite exhibits, he said, is a Boli figure, or power figure, from Mali: an almost formless, squat blob formed from clay, mud and, according to Perry, blood. “It is the sheer potency of the object: there’s something incredibly primal about it,” he said. “I knew as soon as I saw it that it had to be in the exhibition.” There are also shrines (“I love a good shrine”) and pilgrim souvenirs – from modern badges to medieval lead-alloy brooches, one depicting a woman riding a broomstick to which a large penis has been attached. The exhibition is an act of love to the museum – “most of my travelling has been done through this place,” said Perry – but it also subtly questions its authority; it seems to ask why the artist’s deeply intuitive way of organising objects is any less valid than the museum’s scholarly, supposedly objective systems of classification. How hubristic is it of Perry to place his own work alongside these hallowed artefacts? “Of course it’s hubristic,” he said. “I’m absolutely aware of the bitter irony of it being called The Tomb of the Unknown Craftsman when it’s in fact a celebrity artist’s vanity project.” Grayson Perry Museums Charlotte Higgins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
More than 700 people were arrested in an Occupy Wall Street march across Brooklyn Bridge in New York on Saturday. Here, those who were arrested tell their story To the hundreds of Occupy Wall Street protesters hemmed in on Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday, it felt like a trap. Hundreds of people had streamed onto the bridge without impediment, only to find their path blocked, and their retreat prohibited. The NYPD, however, claims it gave “numerous warnings” to protesters not to take the road lanes and only arrested those who failed to heed the exhortations to stay off the road. So who’s right? On Sunday, we asked people who had been arrested on Brooklyn Bridge to get in touch . So far, we have received about 25 first-hand accounts from people who were arrested. They tell a similar story: of confusion at the division between the pedestrian walkway and the traffic lanes on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge, of apparent police acquiescence to the march proceeding into the traffic lanes, of shock when it became clear the police intended to arrest everyone on the bridge, and then of hours of confusion in police precincts across the city as overworked police officers struggled to process a huge volume of arrests. I’m going to post extracts from these accounts today, starting with testimony from the point at which the marchers reached the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge. But first some context: protesters say this video shows police led them onto the traffic lanes of the Brooklyn Bridge. It shows a number of police officers apparently headed by one, wearing a long, orange-lined coat, leading protesters into the Brooklyn-bound traffic lane. On Sunday, the NYPD published video to YouTube which they say shows protesters were warned they would be arrested. The New York Police Department says it warned protesters not to go onto the bridge. Paul Browne, the NYPD chief spokesman, said: “Multiple warnings by police were given to protesters to stay on the pedestrian walkway and that if they took the roadway they would be arrested.” What’s clear from the first-hand accounts is that a small number of protesters, at the intersection of the road lanes and the pedestrian walkway, decided to “take the bridge”. As seen in the video, police warned they would be arrested, but then appeared to let the group though, and even led them onto the bridge. One protester, who asked not to be named, said: “A small group decided spontaneously to ‘take the bridge’ and invited other people to join. The police pretended to give warnings but didn’t act physically in order to stop the protesters.” Some have suggested these breakaway leaders may have been “agents provocateurs” . What is clear is that the march had now divided, and the hundreds of protesters bringing up the rear had no indication that walking onto the bridge would lead them to be arrested. Kate Shiebler, school teacher, Boston The original plan was to head over the Brooklyn Bridge via the pedestrian walkway. Some people decided to take the road instead, including us. We knew there was a risk, since we were near the front of the march. We were probably a few rows back from the front, and we heard a march organizer say that we should stick to the pedestrian walkway, but we never heard or saw any NYPD say this. Hundreds behind us didn’t hear anyone make any announcement, and assumed they were following the permitted march route. NYPD waving people forward and leading the march over the bridge furthered this assumption. MLE Davis, teacher, Harlem, New York When I got to the walkway/roadway split, I heard one of the organizers say that the walkway would be “safer”, so I headed up and looked over. When I saw a group of police officers seeming to lead protesters down the roadway, I figured that we had their consent, blessings, and protection, and climbed down to join those walking on the road. I never heard anyone say one word about it being against the wishes of the NYPD – honestly, I thought they were escorting us across. Jarrett Dougherty, Philadelphia Once we got to the bridge the march was entering the bridge from what appeared to be an entrance open to the march. We followed. There were blue shirt police around but not nearly in the same amounts as there were earlier in the march. Absolutely none of the officers leading up to the entrance informed us that we were actually entering the roadway! About 100 feet onto the roadway another protester up ahead turned around and fired back a message that everyone needed to turn around and get on the walking path to the left. If it was not for this individual we would have completely unknowingly, and without the least hinderance, walked onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge. David Scorca, New York The march moved along smoothly until we reached the mouth of the Brooklyn Bridge. Everything just suddenly jammed up and the march expanded out into a massive crowd. Everyone was chanting “Whose streets? Our streets” as a police officer with a megaphone read something inaudibly off of a piece of paper. Then he and the 8 other officers behind him turned and started walking up onto the bridge. The crowd followed as the police led the way and while some of them even walked beside us. And so the pressure from the jam was released onto the street portion of the bridge. As we continued, people began climbing the fence and jumping from what I then realized was the pedestrian path onto the street with the rest of the march. Carly Smith, PhD student, New York When we got to the Brooklyn Bridge, a line of police appeared and divided the crowd. Some went to the upper level pedestrian path, and others on the other side of the police line were funneled onto the lower roadway, in the left hand lane. We were part of the latter group. There was no clear way of going back once we were on the roadway, and at no time did any police make an announcement that we should not continue – the police walked next to us, and things remained peaceful. I assumed they were going to let us continue, as we would have moved along and crossed the bridge within the next 15 to 20 minutes. My wife Rebecca and I and one male friend found ourselves at the back of the march. Suddenly, towards the middle of the bridge, a huge number of police appeared behind us with cars and vans. Again, no announcements were made. Apparently the same thing happened on the other side, at the front of the crowd. We were quickly penned in with orange netting on all sides. No one was ever given a chance to turn around or to get out of the situation. I’ll update this post later, with details of the confusion at police precincts around New York City. Occupy Wall Street United States Matt Wells guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
More than 700 people were arrested in an Occupy Wall Street march across Brooklyn Bridge in New York on Saturday. Here, those who were arrested tell their story To the hundreds of Occupy Wall Street protesters hemmed in on Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday, it felt like a trap. Hundreds of people had streamed onto the bridge without impediment, only to find their path blocked, and their retreat prohibited. The NYPD, however, claims it gave “numerous warnings” to protesters not to take the road lanes and only arrested those who failed to heed the exhortations to stay off the road. So who’s right? On Sunday, we asked people who had been arrested on Brooklyn Bridge to get in touch . So far, we have received about 25 first-hand accounts from people who were arrested. They tell a similar story: of confusion at the division between the pedestrian walkway and the traffic lanes on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge, of apparent police acquiescence to the march proceeding into the traffic lanes, of shock when it became clear the police intended to arrest everyone on the bridge, and then of hours of confusion in police precincts across the city as overworked police officers struggled to process a huge volume of arrests. I’m going to post extracts from these accounts today, starting with testimony from the point at which the marchers reached the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge. But first some context: protesters say this video shows police led them onto the traffic lanes of the Brooklyn Bridge. It shows a number of police officers apparently headed by one, wearing a long, orange-lined coat, leading protesters into the Brooklyn-bound traffic lane. On Sunday, the NYPD published video to YouTube which they say shows protesters were warned they would be arrested. The New York Police Department says it warned protesters not to go onto the bridge. Paul Browne, the NYPD chief spokesman, said: “Multiple warnings by police were given to protesters to stay on the pedestrian walkway and that if they took the roadway they would be arrested.” What’s clear from the first-hand accounts is that a small number of protesters, at the intersection of the road lanes and the pedestrian walkway, decided to “take the bridge”. As seen in the video, police warned they would be arrested, but then appeared to let the group though, and even led them onto the bridge. One protester, who asked not to be named, said: “A small group decided spontaneously to ‘take the bridge’ and invited other people to join. The police pretended to give warnings but didn’t act physically in order to stop the protesters.” Some have suggested these breakaway leaders may have been “agents provocateurs” . What is clear is that the march had now divided, and the hundreds of protesters bringing up the rear had no indication that walking onto the bridge would lead them to be arrested. Kate Shiebler, school teacher, Boston The original plan was to head over the Brooklyn Bridge via the pedestrian walkway. Some people decided to take the road instead, including us. We knew there was a risk, since we were near the front of the march. We were probably a few rows back from the front, and we heard a march organizer say that we should stick to the pedestrian walkway, but we never heard or saw any NYPD say this. Hundreds behind us didn’t hear anyone make any announcement, and assumed they were following the permitted march route. NYPD waving people forward and leading the march over the bridge furthered this assumption. MLE Davis, teacher, Harlem, New York When I got to the walkway/roadway split, I heard one of the organizers say that the walkway would be “safer”, so I headed up and looked over. When I saw a group of police officers seeming to lead protesters down the roadway, I figured that we had their consent, blessings, and protection, and climbed down to join those walking on the road. I never heard anyone say one word about it being against the wishes of the NYPD – honestly, I thought they were escorting us across. Jarrett Dougherty, Philadelphia Once we got to the bridge the march was entering the bridge from what appeared to be an entrance open to the march. We followed. There were blue shirt police around but not nearly in the same amounts as there were earlier in the march. Absolutely none of the officers leading up to the entrance informed us that we were actually entering the roadway! About 100 feet onto the roadway another protester up ahead turned around and fired back a message that everyone needed to turn around and get on the walking path to the left. If it was not for this individual we would have completely unknowingly, and without the least hinderance, walked onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge. David Scorca, New York The march moved along smoothly until we reached the mouth of the Brooklyn Bridge. Everything just suddenly jammed up and the march expanded out into a massive crowd. Everyone was chanting “Whose streets? Our streets” as a police officer with a megaphone read something inaudibly off of a piece of paper. Then he and the 8 other officers behind him turned and started walking up onto the bridge. The crowd followed as the police led the way and while some of them even walked beside us. And so the pressure from the jam was released onto the street portion of the bridge. As we continued, people began climbing the fence and jumping from what I then realized was the pedestrian path onto the street with the rest of the march. Carly Smith, PhD student, New York When we got to the Brooklyn Bridge, a line of police appeared and divided the crowd. Some went to the upper level pedestrian path, and others on the other side of the police line were funneled onto the lower roadway, in the left hand lane. We were part of the latter group. There was no clear way of going back once we were on the roadway, and at no time did any police make an announcement that we should not continue – the police walked next to us, and things remained peaceful. I assumed they were going to let us continue, as we would have moved along and crossed the bridge within the next 15 to 20 minutes. My wife Rebecca and I and one male friend found ourselves at the back of the march. Suddenly, towards the middle of the bridge, a huge number of police appeared behind us with cars and vans. Again, no announcements were made. Apparently the same thing happened on the other side, at the front of the crowd. We were quickly penned in with orange netting on all sides. No one was ever given a chance to turn around or to get out of the situation. I’ll update this post later, with details of the confusion at police precincts around New York City. Occupy Wall Street United States Matt Wells guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) says that Republican candidates should have rebuked members of the audience that booed a gay service member during Fox News’ September presidential debate but it is sometimes “hard to react” while on stage. “The fact is that we should honor every man and woman who is serving in the military and in no way should treat them with anything but the highest regard,” McCain, who opposed the repeal of the military’s gay ban, told CBS’ Bob Schieffer Sunday. “Do you think that the Republican candidate should have spoken up at that debate about that?” Schieffer asked. “Yeah, I do,” McCain replied. “But a lot of times when you are in a debate, you’re thinking about what you’re going to say and what the question is going to be. It’s hard to react sometimes, but I’m sure that — I would bet that every Republican on that stage did not agree with that kind of behavior.” The Arizona senator added that President Barack Obama had a point during his speech to the Human Rights Campaign Saturday. “You want to be commander in chief?” Obama had declared. “You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States even when it’s not political convenient.” Audiences at recent Republican presidential debates have also called for letting an uninsured man die and have cheered Texas’ record of 234 executions under Gov. Rick Perry (R).
Continue reading …NBC Cheers Wall Street Protests As Liberal Version of Tea Party But Denounced Actual Tea Party
October 3, 2011 No Comment
On Monday's NBC “Today,” correspondent Michelle Franzen reported on the left-wing “Occupy Wall Street” protests in New York and proclaimed: “Protesters fed up with the economy and social inequality turned out en masse over the weekend….Voicing their discontent and marching for change.” Touting the protest as “a movement that has taken off in the past few weeks with protests spreading to other cities around the country,” Franzen declared: “Labor experts say uprisings overseas have empowered protesters to speak out.” A sound bite was included of Columbia University's Dorian Warren arguing: “Those movements, those revolutions led by young people [in the Middle East]…I think that's another, let's say, inspiration for why they are sitting-in now.” On Saturday's “Nightly News,” Franzen offered a similar report, including another sound bite from Warren, who asserted the Wall Street protests were “a liberal version of the Tea Party.” He added: “I think this could potentially carry over into the 2012 elections and get people to the polls.” On Sunday's Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne about the movement: “…your column out tomorrow talks about the equivalent Tea Party movement on the left. What did we see over the weekend in lower Manhattan and in Brooklyn, this 'Occupy Wall Street' movement….does the President, in a way, need more of this, more activism on the left to say, 'We need a response to what we're seeing on the conservative side'?” Dionne agreed and lamented: “I think the President has been hurt by the lack of an organized left….A left would be out there saying, 'Wait a minute, Barack Obama is a moderate or a moderate sort of liberal. We want to push farther than this.' Right now, the whole discussion is skewed because the media has been obsessed by the Tea Party.” That media “obsession” with the Tea Party actually began as an attempt to completely dismiss it. Noting nationwide Tea Party tax day protests on the April 15, 2009 “Today,” chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd remarked: “There's been some grassroots conservatives who have organized so-called Tea Parties around the country, hoping the historical reference will help galvanize Americans against the President's economic ideas. But, I tell you, the idea hasn't really caught on.” As the Tea Party gained momentum, the media changed tactics, demonizing it as racially motivated. In an interview with Jimmy Carter on the September 14, 2009 “Nightly News,” anchor Brian Williams highlighted the former president's smear of the movement: “A certain number of signs and images at last weekend's big Tea Party march in Washington and at other recent events have featured racial and other violent themes, and President Carter today said he is extremely worried by it.” In contrast, NBC's reporting on the Wall Street protesters was free of criticism. In fact, on the September 27 “Today,” news anchor Natalie Morales announced: “Protesters camping out on Wall Street got an unexpected visit last night from filmmaker Michael Moore. The 'Occupy Wall Street' protest against corporate greed is in its second week. Protesters called Moore's visit a 'morale boost' after police arrested 87 demonstrators this weekend.” Despite such arrests, and another 700 that occurred on Saturday as protesters attempted to stop traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge, NBC reporters voiced no concern of potential violence or extremism from the left-wing group. However, on the March 24, 2010 “Nightly News,” Williams warned viewers about the Tea Party: “It's getting ugly as anger over health care reform erupts into some over-the-top rhetoric, including threats now against members of Congress….It can now be said that the debate over health care reform has gone too far. It's now veered into threats of violence.” Unlike NBC, ABC and CBS have given little coverage to the “Occupy Wall Street” protests –
Continue reading …