The Islamic Defenders Front, a radical Indonesian Muslim group in Jakarta, announced plans to hold “a mass prayer for Bin Laden,” CNN reports. In a text message to the media, the Islamic Defenders Front announced its prayer service just two days after the world’s most wanted man was killed and buried by U.S. special forces.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Donald Rumsfeld headed to Hannity’s show to clarify his opinion on waterboarding, information extraction, and the Bin Laden timeline. In the process, he manages to use careful language and sleight of hand to distort what he really said the day before, while confirming that indeed, waterboarding KSM did not yield any usable information that led to Bin Laden. I’m guessing Bill O’Reilly and Donald Rumsfeld just don’t get along, because Rumsfeld was glad to subject himself to a little softball on Hannity’s show not even an hour after O’Reilly tried to take a bite out of Alan Colmes . Let’s review the actual timeline, courtesy of Marcy Wheeler : Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, months after he was waterboarded and via “standard” interrogation , admits he knows someone named Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, but denies he has anything to do with al Qaeda. Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004, reveals that Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti was an al Qaeda courier Under CIA interrogation, Abu Faraj al-Libi admits he learned he was replacing KSM through a courier, but denied knowing al-Kuwaiti so strenuously CIA figured he must be important Via still unclear means, CIA learns Abu Ahmed’s real name US picks up Abu Ahmed talking to someone else it was monitoring, speaking from a location away from the compound US tracks Abu Ahmed back to compound Marcy follows up later with this post , proving the “enhanced interrogation techniques” did not yield Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s name. Instead, KSM lied to interrogators while he was being tortured. There’s your timeline. Now listen to Donald Rumsfeld try to distort it. I’ll add the transcript below with some occasional interruptions for commentary. HANNITY: Let me ask you this. I think it’s pretty clear now that discovering who this courier was through strong interrogation techniques that were employed during the Bush Administration without which this day would never have occurred. So can we — uh – It seems to me we need to reignite this debate about enhanced interrogation techniques in this country. Is that a good idea? Editorial insert: No, it’s a helluva bad idea, and really we just don’t torture. That is all. We do. not. torture. Back to regularly scheduled programming. RUMSFELD: I think it certainly is a reasonable idea. Is it correct that CIA director Panetta today — HANNITY: Yes. RUMSFELD: — indicated that one of the individuals who provided important information had in fact been waterboarded? Is that correct? HANNITY: Yes. RUMSFELD: Well, that’s my understanding. And I think that anyone who suggests that the enhanced techniques — let’s be blunt – waterboarding — did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence just isn’t facing the truth. It’s time to refer back to the timeline above and reiterate point number one: KSM name-dropped under standard interrogation techniques months after he had been waterboarded. There was no cause/effect there. Back to Rumsfeld. The facts are, General Mike Hayden came in, he had no connection with waterboarding anybody, he looked at all the evidence and concluded that a major fraction of the intelligence in our country on Al Qaeda came from individuals — the three, only three people — who were waterboarded. Muddy water alert! Referring to the OLC torture memo (PDF) with regard to the three individuals (all considered “high-value), we find this: Consistent with its heightened standard for use of the waterboard, the CIA has used this technique in the interrogations of only three detainees to date (KSM, Zubaydah, and ‘Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri) and has not used it since the March 2003 interrogation of KSM. What Rumsfeld is doing here is conflating past waterboarding with the actual standard interrogation techniques which first yielded a name, which wasn’t even the courier’s real name , in 2004. But he goes even further with it. HANNITY: Well, there were only three people. And that led to the information of the nickname of the courier. And this by the way — we’ve had this for years and this was being pursued during the Bush years. The courier’s name was found, he was eventually identified, and through eavesdropping we were able to locate him and then locate Bin Laden. But that brings up the issue of black sites, enhanced interrogation, rendition, all the things we’ve discussed. We would not have had the success! And these are the very policies…I praised the president yesterday. I think it was a gutsy move, that he decided to go in and get him so we could have identification. But if he had had his way and Democrats had their way, we wouldn’t have had this intelligence, sir. Dang, we may be past mud and right on into sludge and muck mixed with some strong manure. Because Hannity, without coming right out and saying it, says the waterboarding was the direct reason for the information which was, of course, not true and doesn’t fit in the timeline even a little bit. RUMSFELD: You’re exactly right. I also agree that he made the right decision. Rather than using cruise missiles or drones to attack the facility I think using the SEAL teams and going in there and actually getting him physically, identifying him, knowing that’s what’s happened and being certain about it was exactly the right call. I’m told there was some confusion today on some programs, even one on Fox I think, suggesting that I indicated that no one who was waterboarded at Guantanamo provided any information on this. That’s just not true. BREAK for manure stirring: That is clearly NOT what was said. See how carefully Rumsfeld misstates what was said by Colmes on O’Reilly? Colmes: Actually, it was false information they got through waterboarding . It was actually when they ran the names by this guy that he never heard of them. In order to confuse the entire issue, Rumsfeld, with Hannity’s blessing, invents a scenario that is entirely different than what anyone has said happened. So yes, it’s quite easy to deny something that was never said in the first place. RUMSFELD: What I said was, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the US military. In fact, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo, period. Three people were waterboarded by the CIA away from Guantanamo and then later brought to Guantanamo and in fact, as you point out, the information that came from those individuals was critically important. Guantanamo is irrelevant. That’s a smokescreen, which Rumsfeld then uses to confuse and muck the issue even more by again conflating the information elicited under standard interrogation techniques with the CIA waterboarding. But if you read carefully, what you see is Rumsfeld agreeing that waterboarding techniques did not elicit the information. Standard techniques did. You may have noticed on the chyron at the bottom that Karl Rove was to follow the Rumsfeld interview. After wading through this excrement-laden flow of nonsense, there is no way I will be inflicting that segment on any of you, or transcribing it. Rumsfeld has left a stench where clarity used to be.
Continue reading …
Mahmoud Abbas says deal turns ‘black page of division’ after signing deal with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Egypt Rival Palestinian groups have hailed the signing of a reconciliation agreement that could change the parameters of the search for Middle East peace, amid trenchant opposition from Israel. Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the head of Fatah, and Khaled Meshaal, the leader of the Islamist movement Hamas, met for the first time in five years at a ceremony in Cairo on Wednesday, where Egypt’s transitional government pulled off a striking coup by brokering the deal. Abbas, Yasser Arafat’s successor as leader of the PLO, said they had turned forever the “black page of divisions”. Meshaal, also seeking to strike a historically resonant note, declared that Hamas’s bitter rift with Fatah was “behind us”. The potential of the agreement was underlined by the presence of representatives from the UN, the EU and the Arab League – all now digesting the diplomatic implications for the region. “We are certain of success so long as we are united,” Abbas said. “Reconciliation clears the way not only to putting the Palestinian house in order but also to a just peace.” The deal will make it easier for the Palestinians to go to the UN in September and demand broad international recognition of an independent state – without a negotiated peace agreement with Israel. It provides for the creation of a joint caretaker government before Palestinian-wide elections next year. It does not require Hamas to recognise Israel. But sensitivities and difficulties ahead were underlined by an argument over protocol –whether Meshaal should sit on the podium with Abbas or among other delegates in the hall. The agreement was hailed in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and refugee camps in Lebanon. But the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, savaged the accord as “a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism”. Israel, which signed the 1993 Oslo agreement with the PLO, shuns Hamas, viewing it as a terrorist group committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. The former Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, did not help the movement’s image when he praised Osama Bin Laden as an “Arab holy warrior”. “How can we make peace with a government when half of it calls for the destruction of Israel and glorifies the murderous Osama bin Laden?” Netanyahu said during a visit to London. Netanyahu has been lobbying for the EU and the US to cut aid to the PA if Hamas joins a new government. Meshaal, once the target of an assassination attempt by the Mossad, and now based in Damascus, Syria, spelled out Hamas’s goal: “Our aim is to establish a free and completely sovereign Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, whose capital is Jerusalem, without any settlers and without giving up a single inch of land and without giving up on the right of return [of Palestinian refugees].” The reconciliation brought recognisable signs of change to the streets of Gaza City hours before the signing of the pact. Palestine TV, the channel associated with Fatah and its de facto capital, Ramallah, was allowed to broadcast live from Gaza for the first time in four years. The event they televised, a demonstration in favour of the reconciliation agreement, began with a few dozen people chanting in the Square of the Unknown Soldier, and developed into a raucous party of thousands waving the yellow flags of Fatah which had been long hidden. Last week, when news of the agreement became public, activists headed to the same square to demonstrate their pleasure at the prospect of an end to division. Within minutes, they were cleared by Hamas policemen wielding batons. On Wednesday, the same policeman made no attempt to clear the crowds even when the green flags of Hamas supporters were lost in a sea of yellow Fatah flags. Rashid Mawad, a student, was waving a Fatah flag with one hand, his other still in a plaster cast following his beating at last week’s demonstration, his face still bruised. “I wasn’t optimistic last week but I feel different now,” he said. “I don’t know why, perhaps it’s because of the events in Syria,” he said. Mowayad Aish, an engineering student, was waving a Hamas flag a few metres away. “This is the first step towards ending the occupation of Palestine. It is true there have been difficulties in the past and there will be obstacles in the future but we must remember it is for the people that we want to end the division.” Hamas Palestinian territories Fatah Mahmoud Abbas Egypt Middle East Ian Black Conal Urquhart guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Well, the black hole we feared might open due to the critical mass of wingnuttery in one location didn’t quite occur Monday night in Colorado, but Sarah Palin’s “Tribute to the Troops” speech certainly gave us a look at the black hole that is her mind. Her speech was full of all kinds of classic Palinisms — such as her insistence that American troops never be placed under foreign command. (In reality, of course, U.S. soldiers have served under foreign commanders numerous times in the past century, including in critical theaters of World War II.) Or her bizarre formulation for world peace. But what really stood out was the fact that Palin’s speech — delivered less than 24 hours after the death of Osama bin Laden was announced, and full of all kinds of congratulations and praise to the troops and commanders who made it happen — deliberately omitted, in about as obvious and as graceless and clumsy a fashion imaginable, President Obama from the congratulations. Indeed, she instead congratulated George W. Bush. And then she went on to attack Obama for his foreign policy — and worse yet, imply to the gathered soldiers that he was undeserving of their loyalty — without, in fact, ever once even enunciating his name. Here’s how her congratulations went: PALIN: Last night — thank God, last night — all of us hearing the news that one evil leader — [applause] — one evil leader of Islamic extremists who was responsible for the murders of thousands of innocent Americans had finally met justice, at the hands of America’s finest. [Applause] It is my honor to get to speak of those finest in uniform today. We get to pay tribute to those finest United States military. I know that we’ll probably all remember as individuals where we were that September day when the horrific thoughts and ambitions and plans of this terrorist cut short the thoughts, ambitions and plans of beloved innocent Americans who were heartlessly murdered on September 11, 2001. God bless all the brave men and women in our military and our intelligence services who carried out the successful mission to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. And all those who had laid the groundwork over the years to make that victory possible. This historic action that was announced last night, it was the result of the diligence, and the hard work, and the character of countless American warriors. … Yesterday was a testament to the military’s dedication in relentlessly hunting down an enemy through many years of war. And we thank our president — we thank President Bush for having made the right calls to set up this victory. Then, as the Denver Post reported, she went on to attack Obama’s foreign policy: Striking a more political note, Palin said American troops need clear leadership. She cited the Obama administration’s policy in Libya as an example of “a lack of clarity.” “We can’t fight every war,” she said. “We can’t undo every injustice in the world. “We don’t go looking for dragons to slay.” Then she wrapped up on a truly scurrilous note: PALIN: We need leaders who embody the same standard as to which the men and women in uniform hold themselves. Remember: the true soldier fights because he loves what is behind him. Behind him here is tradition, it’s patriotism, it’s — it’s not a need for a fundamental transformation of America! It’s for a renewal of all that’s good about America! Does that sound to you like she’s telling these soldiers that President Obama is undeserving of their loyalty? It sure does to me. By the way, we haven’t gotten word yet on what Jerry Boykin’s speech contained. Considering that he’s been promoting the theory that President Obama and the radical liberals are working hand in glove with Bin Laden and the Islamic radicals to destroy America , well, let’s just guess that major portions of it had to be rewritten. We’ll report back when we learn more.
Continue reading …
• Hit the auto-update button for the latest posts • Send your thoughts to barry.glendenning@guardian.co.uk • Tweet Barry if that’s your bag More emails: “There seems to be a lot of former Middlesbrough coaches out of work,” writes Brett LeQuesne. “Who gets a job first? Southgate, McClaren or Strachan?” “You’ve stumbled on Fergie’s tactical blackspot- he has a weakness for central midfielders called Darren (or variant),” writes Nick McLoughlin. “Fletcher was poor for his first 3 years, Gibson unproven, Ferguson blatant nepotism. Obviously the sort of genius that will secure you a podcast punditry award!” Speaking of podcast punditry awards … Not long now: Click-clack, click-clack, click-clack. The teams emerge from the tunnel down by the Stretford End at Old Trafford and ITV cut to an advert break. Their programme is sponsored by Ford, don’t you know? In the ITV studio: “There’s no way Sir Alex Ferguson is ever complacent but he’s obviously got one-eyed firmly on Chelsea,” says Gareth Southgate. “Berbatov’s got to take the challenge on tonight,” adds Gordon Strachan, shortly after talking about players who get the hump when they feel their manager doesn’t trust them. Another email: “I thought the bride looked lovely. Didn’t you?” asks Tim Smith. If you’re alluding to the Royal Wedding, Tim, I’m afraid I missed it. Like Gordon Brown (no, the other one), I wasn’t invited. I did, however, see photos and thought Kate looked very glam, if worryingly thin. An email: “Good to see Darren back in contention,” writes Gordon Brown, who feels compelled to write “real name, honest!” in brackets next to his sign-off. “He could be very useful over the next 5 games.” Please note: he wrote Darr e n, not Darr o n. Distinctions don’t get more important. Man Utd: Van der Sar, Rafael Da Silva, Smalling, Evans, O’Shea, Gibson, Scholes, Anderson, Valencia, Berbatov, Nani. Subs: Kuszczak, Evra, Owen, Giggs, Hernandez, Vidic, Fletcher. Schalke 04: Neuer, Uchida, Howedes, Metzelder, Escudero, Papadopoulos, Jurado, Farfan, Baumjohann, Draxler, Raul. Subs: Schober, Sarpei, Edu, Schmitz, Karimi, Huntelaar, Matip. Referee: Pedro Proenca (Portugal) Good evening everybody and welcome to tonight’s minute-by-minute coverage of Manchester United v Schalke in the Champions League semi-final second leg. Sir Alex Ferguson’s side won the first leg doing handstands , with only the heroics of Schalke’s highly coveted goalkeeper Manuel Neuer helping a surprisingly over-awed German side avoid total humiliation. Manchester United’s manager has said that complacency won’t be a problem in a second leg many are considering a formality for the Premier League leaders, but Wayne Rooney’s tight hamstring, last Sunday’s league defeat at the hands of Arsenal and what looks suspiciously like complacency have forced Ferguson to make nine changes and draft in the second string in order to rest several players ahead of United’s potential title-decider against Chelsea this Sunday. Should his plan backfire and United lose, he’ll have a lot of difficult questions to answer. With a berth in the final against Barcelona at stake, Ralf Rangnick’s Schalke squad have been making all the right noises ahead of tonight’s encounter, even though they almost didn’t make it to Manchester – their departure from Dusseldorf airport was delayed by 90 minutes yesterday as a result of visa problems encountered by their five non-EU squad members. Having put five past reigning Champions League holders Inter at the San Siro, they’ve every right to feel confident about pulling this tie out of the fire. After all, it is surely inconceivable that they can play any worse tonight than they did last Tuesday, isn’t it? Interestingly, only two of Schalke’s players have played at Old Trafford before: Raúl and Angelos Charisteas, with both finding their way on to the score-sheet for Real Madrid and Greece respectively. A portent for the night’s entertainment ahead? Probably not, but it’s something for neutrals to cling to. History, however, is very much on Manchester Un ited’s side: they’ve never lost by two goals at home in Europe and never surrendered their advantage after winning the first leg away from home. Champions League Manchester United Schalke Barry Glendenning guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Switch of WikiLeaks whistleblower suspect from maximum security jail means more rights and liberties in runup to trial The conditions under which the WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning is being detained in military prison have vastly improved in the wake of a sustained campaign against his earlier treatment, which some said amounted to torture. Since Manning was transferred from the Quantico marine base in Virginia to Fort Leavenworth on 20 April his detention regime has changed dramatically. He has been switched from maximum security to medium custody, which affords him many more rights and liberties, and he is no longer being held under a prevention of injury watch that imposed harsh conditions. The new regime has been revealed in a blog post from Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, who is handling the US soldier’s forthcoming court martial. The prisoner, who worked as an army intelligence specialist in Iraq, has been charged with multiple counts relating to the leaking of a huge trove of state secrets to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. Under the old prevention order, Manning was forced to strip naked and wear just a smock at night, he had no bedding and was not permitted any personal items in his cell. He was kept locked up in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day in a windowless cell, and allowed only to walk in a yard on his own for that final hour. In Fort Leavenworth, by contrast, he has a large window that lets in natural light. He has a normal mattress and bedding and his clothes are not removed at night. Manning can have personal objects in his cell, including books and letters from family and friends, as well as legal documents relating to his case. He can write whenever he wants. His new life of detention is also considerably less lonely. There are five other pretrial prisoners and Manning spends much of the day in their company. His cell is connected to a common area used by four of the detainees with a television and exercise machine, table and shower area. The improvement in Manning’s prison life is testament to the power of a sustained campaign by his supporters and politicians to end what was deemed virtual torture against him. The Pentagon had been flooded with emails and lobbied by representatives such as Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic congressman from Ohio who took up Manning’s cause. The UK embassy in Washington has also been involved after the Guardian revealed that Manning is a British citizen by dint of his mother being Welsh. Kucinich said the lawyer’s account of Manning’s new conditions revealed a dramatic change “that can only be attributed to the public campaign that brought great pressure on the department of defence”. But Manning’s more relaxed treatment also raises serious questions about why he was treated so brutally for the nine months in which he was held at Quantico. When Barack Obama was asked about the case in March, he said he had been assured by the Pentagon that Manning’s treatment was appropriate. Kucinich said he would continue to press through Congress for answers to a number of questions: “Why was Manning treated the way he was in Quantico that was similar to torture? Who was responsible for that treatment, and what’s going to be done to ensure those individuals are held to account?” Bradley Manning WikiLeaks Human rights United States US national security Protest US military Torture Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Tory town hall in U-turn over radical scheme to outsource all services as staff morale sinks and public fight cuts A flagship Tory local authority has halted controversial “virtual council” plans to outsource all its services, after public opposition to spending cuts and a collapse in staff morale triggered a political revolt by backbenchers. Suffolk county council’s radical proposals, revealed by the Guardian last autumn , aimed to float off such services as waste disposal and child protection to private firms, social enterprises and charities. Potentially this move would have brought about hundreds of millions of pounds in savings but put thousands of jobs at risk. The council’s Tory leadership has now arranged a “period of reflection” to assess the plans, which are regarded by the government as a role model for municipal reform. The council has also promised to assess again the unpopular proposals to cut school crossing patrols, close libraries , and raise student travel-pass charges . The newly elected Conservative group leader, Mark Bee, said the pause gave “an opportunity to review everything”. He said that though the council could not avoid the tens of millions of pounds of imposed spending cuts, it would adopt a pragmatic, measured, approach to town hall reform and listen more closely to staff and local people. “We are not going to change things by revolution [but] by taking communities with us.” Bee added: “It’s not going to be about ‘no more cuts’ and keeping things as they are; things have got to change, but it is finding the right kind of change rather than just steaming into it.” Suffolk’s U-turn over its “virtual council” is the first big Tory rank-and-file mutiny over unpopular spending cuts in local government, and emerges as, nationally, the party braces itself for a disappointing performance in Thursday’s local elections. It comes amid signs that ministers are increasingly nervous about the potential unpopularity of outsourcing public services to the private sector . Events in Suffolk will be watched closely by Tory-led councils considering similar reform plans, including Bury in Greater Manchester. Labour’s shadow communities and local government secretary, Caroline Flint, said: “I’m all in favour of innovation and efficiency in local government, but the Conservatives running Suffolk county council have decided to put party political ideology ahead of running effective local services – and it’s backfired. “There is also a lesson for David Cameron and [the communities secretary] Eric Pickles here. Pushing through half-baked Tory experiments and ignoring the wishes of local people is more likely to put frontline services at risk than improve them.” Kathy Pollard, leader of Suffolk’s Liberal Democrat opposition, welcomed the “slowing down” of the council’s plans for cuts, but said it was important to read the small print of the proposed U-turn. The previous council leader, Jeremy Pembroke, who helped oversee the plans, known officially as the new strategic direction, stepped down in April amid concern about the deeply unpopular changes . An inquiry was begun into morale at the council’s legal department after an anonymous whistleblowing letter, sent to councillors, and believed to be from an employee, alleged staff there had been put under “unbearable pressure”. The letter refers to “the poisonous atmosphere that exists at present” in the council. Two council executives have resigned suddenly in recent weeks. Bee, who formally becomes leader of Suffolk council on 26 May, said that addressing staff morale would be a priority for the new administration. He paid tribute to council employees but added: “We need to spend more time listening to practitioners.” The changes have raised questions over the future of the council’s high-profile chief executive, Andrea Hill, who has been pilloried by media over her £218,000-a-year salary and dogged by concerns over her management style. Hill, , who said the new strategic direction was regarded by some ministers as a role model for local government, vociferously defended the “leading edge” proposals in an article for the council’s magazine. “It’s not an easy or comfortable place to be because we are challenging the old ways of doing things. We are developing a new model that will unsettle the status quo and, as we all know, any change makes ordinary people uncertain. Changing the system challenges vested interests and will therefore be attacked,” she wrote. Local government Privatisation Conservative and Liberal Democrat cabinet Local politics Economic policy Elections 2011 Patrick Butler guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Like TV and DVD before, Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox’s online releases can’t compete with the movie-going experience The news that two of Hollywood’s major studios, Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox, are planning to make new movies available online only two months after release is being heralded as a harbinger of doom for cinema. We’ve been through this scaremongering before, with the rise of television, video, DVD, on-demand rental companies such as Netflix and Lovefilm, as well as video iPods. Like the hounded heroine of a stalk’n’slash horror, cinema has throughout its history faced attempts on its life, and moments at which its number seemed to be well and truly up. Let’s get something straight: nothing can compete with cinema, and nothing ever will. Audience numbers and box-office takings will always fluctuate. But suggesting that downloading can ever provide an alternative to cinema is like saying that fast-food chains will kill off restaurants. The experiences are not comparable. It may take people a while to realise that – they may dip a toe in the studios’ on-demand scheme – but they will soon come to miss the largeness, the inclusivity and the sense of occasion that comes from going to the cinema. When you watch a film on a television or a laptop or, God forbid, an iPod, you haven’t seen it as it was intended. Sometimes it’s the only option available, especially with old or obscure movies now that the repertory scene is in permanent decline and the double bill has all but died out. But the idea that audiences for blockbusters are going to spurn the excitement of experiencing at maximum size, say, the latest Pirates of the Caribbean release, or whatever floats your schooner, is ridiculous. Most will know almost without realising it that there is no alternative to the communal, immersive alchemy of cinema-going. Nothing trumps it. None of which should suggest that cinemas themselves can afford to be complacent or exploitative. While cinema is a social experience, the chains owe it to the ticket-buying public to be more vigilant about those disruptive audience members for whom cinemas are merely alternative venues for mobile phone conversations. And pricing remains an issue. I haven’t given any of my custom to the Vue cinema chain for a year now, since it charged me £21 for myself and my 10-year-old daughter to see How to Train Your Dragon at 11am on a Sunday morning several months into the film’s release (we had even brought our own 3D glasses). There are similar complaints in the US. Joe Flint wrote on the subject on the LA Times website last year. His beef was with the pricing structure at Hollywood’s otherwise wonderful Arclight cinema, a classy venue that knocks any Vue into a cocked popcorn tub. Extortionate pricing, Flint says, “gives people just one more reason to stay home. At a time when theatre operators are worried about movies popping up sooner on DVD and video-on-demand and thereby undercutting ticket sales, making it costlier to go out to the local multiplex seems ill advised.” I think Flint is right up to a point – floating voters could be swayed if pricing continues to veer toward the prohibitive. But the shrinking of the window between cinema and on-demand release dates is a consequence of an entire society’s tendency towards instant gratification, rather than a knife in the back of one particular cultural experience. Besides, it isn’t just the integrity and authenticity of the films that we would lose in defecting to on-demand; it’s the memories that are bound up with them. When I think of my most cherished cinema-going experiences, they rarely revolve around favourite films so much as favourite audiences or atmospheres: the spontaneous wave of applause and cheering that broke out in a cinema in 1981 following the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark in which a tricksy swordfighter is dispatched with an off-the-cuff bullet; the police chasing a suspect through the auditorium where I was watching Wes Craven’s New Nightmare; the metronomic snap of seats that announced one walkout after another during The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover or David Cronenberg’s Crash, and seemed only to intensify the pleasure for those of us who stayed the course. Movie memories are made of this. They don’t tend to begin with the words: “Remember the time we downloaded that film …” Film industry Digital media Ryan Gilbey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Guardian/ICM survey shows further slump in support for electoral change in major setback for Nick Clegg Voters look set to deal a crushing blow to Nick Clegg by rejecting the alternative vote by a two to one majority, an end of campaign Guardian/ICM poll shows. The survey predicts a 68% no vote against just 32% for yesand, in line with other recent polls, suggests support for electoral change has slumped further since a Guardian/ICM poll last month revealed the growing size of the no lead. The lead then was 16 points, compared with 36 now. That suggests the campaign has been overwhelmingly lost by the Yes to AV alliance, which began the year with an apparent lead in the polls. In February, a Guardian/ICM poll put the yes camp ahead by two points. The latest poll, carried out by telephone and including a representative sample of voters in Northern Ireland, finds opposition to AV has grown among most types of voters. A majority of Labour supporters now say they will vote against AV despite Ed Miliband’s endorsement of change. So will almost nine in 10 Conservatives and more than a quarter of definite Lib Dem voters, whose lukewarm support seems confirmed by the fact that they are now less likely than Conservative or Labour voters to say they will turn out. Young voters remain in favour of AV, but are the least likely to be certain to vote. Among all voters, before adjustment for likely turnout, 28% said they were for change, with 52% against and 20% who said they didn’t know. After adjustment, among voters who say they are likely to vote, 32% back yes, down from 42% in April. Meanwhile 68% say no – up from 58%. The poll was carried out over Monday and Tuesday this week. The bank holiday made it more difficult to reach some voters, but figures for the state of the parties have been adjusted to take account of any imbalance in the sample. In a hypothetical immediate general election, Labour has 37%, unchanged from April. The Conservatives are on 36%, up one. The Liberal Democrats are on 15%, unchanged, and others on a combined 11%, down two. • ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1035 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 2-3rd May 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Alternative vote AV referendum Electoral reform Opinion polls Nick Clegg Ed Miliband David Cameron Liberal Democrats Conservatives Labour Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Shares soar as company becomes one of first social networks to go public in US – despite it continuing to make a loss Renren, China’s answer to Facebook, raised $743m (£448m) with its eagerly awaited flotation on the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday, as shares in the social network rocketed in early trading. Investors scrambled to bet huge sums on the Chinese social media giant, set at $14 a share for its market debut – about 50% higher than the expected price range posted last week. The company’s share price had settled at just under $19 a share by 4pm London time, about 35% up on its opening level. Renren becomes the latest Chinese internet giant to make its debut on the New York Stock Exchange, capitalising on investor clamour for the new generation of internet companies. Recent flotations from China’s booming internet market include the online video company Youku and the dating website Jiayuan. The loss-making social network, which has about 5 million monthly users, sold 53.1m US depositary shares for $14 each, raising $743.3m, according to its underwriters. Renren chief executive, Joseph Chen, vowed to report a profit “definitely very soon”. Chen added: “I believe this will enhance our brand and further validate our position as the leading real-name social networking internet platform in China. This listing brings us an important step closer to realising our vision to define social networking experience and to revolutionise the way that people in China connect, communicate, entertain and shop.” Renren posted a net loss of $64.2m last year, down from $70.1m in 2009. The company reported revenues of $76.5m last year. Renren’s largest backer is Japan’s SoftBank, which owns a 40% stake. Investor demand for the site proved strong despite concerns over its prospectus, its internal financial structure, and government influence over the Chinese internet market. Renren’s already-delayed initial public offering was thrown into question on Tuesday as Derek Palaschuk, a board member who heads the company’s audit committee, resigned over allegations of fraud against a separate company – Longtop Financial Technologies – of which he is chief financial officer. The six-year-old company also revised its prospectus to potential investors after observers pointed out potential inaccuracies with its user figures. Initially, Renren said its user base had grown 29% in the first quarter of this year. It later revised that figure to 19%. Renren is one of the first social networking companies to float on the New York Stock Exchange, just five months after the popular social network for business professionals, LinkedIn, declared its intention to go public. Facebook, the world’s most popular social network which has attracted a $70bn valuation, is expected to go public next year, with fellow social media sites Twitter and Zynga expected to follow suit. Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse were lead underwriters on Renren’s IPO. •
Continue reading …