Jury sees images of the newspaper seller lying on the ground after being struck by a police officer at the G20 protests Disturbing new footage that shows Ian Tomlinson lying motionless on the ground shortly after being struck by a policeman at the G20 protests was shown to a jury during the opening day of the inquest into his death. Members of his family wept when the footage was played, revealing previously unseen images of the 47-year-old newspaper seller lying on the ground, being tended to by a female medical student. The jury of 11, attending the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London, was shown footage of Tomlinson and PC Simon Harwood, the officer filmed striking him moments before his collapse on 1 April 2009. Judge Peter Thornton QC, sitting as assistant deputy coroner, told the jury that Harwood, of the Met police’s territorial support group, was not on trial. “This is an inquest, not a public inquiry. But every inquest is an inquiry into the death. That involves looking at the circumstances in which the death arose, but not all of the much broader issues which a public inquiry might consider.” Thornton said that Harwood’s shoving of Tomlinson at 7.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings was unlikely to be contested. The jury saw footage of Harwood striking Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him hard in the back. Tomlinson was propelled and fell to the ground. “PC Harwood accepted later that he did those things, and he gave his reasons for doing them,” Thornton said. Tomlinson then walked about 100 metres along Cornhill before collapsing. He was pronounced dead at 8.10pm. Thornton said there was likely to be “controversy” over the medical evidence. Freddy Patel, the pathologist who did the first postmortem examination, concluded that Tomlinson died of coronary heart disease. Two other pathologists, Nat Cary and Kenneth Shorrock, said he died of internal bleeding. “It is likely to be a controversial area in the inquest,” Thornton said. “There is likely to be controversy about the finding by Dr Patel in the first postmortem about the presence of fluid in the abdomen and the extent it contained blood.” The jury was shown footage compiled by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, including video from CCTV cameras, bystanders and police helicopters. It included images obtained from trawling websites such as YouTube and was shown in two batches. The first batch showed Tomlinson at Monument tube station just before 7pm. He was repeatedly turned away from police cordons blocking his route home, before he appeared, at about 7.20pm, on Royal Exchange Buildings. He collapsed on the pavement at Cornhill about three minutes later. Lucy Apps, a medical student, went to his aid. Video showed riot officers arriving on the scene and moving her away. There was no evidence that protesters impeded police medics from treating Tomlinson, who was carried away by police minutes later. The second film batch followed Harwood. Fifteen minutes before he struck Tomlinson he tried to arrest a protester, dragging him into the crowd by his jacket. Harwood could have had confrontations with at least two other people in the minutes before his encounter with Tomlinson. Among the witnesses giving evidence at the hearing was Barry Smith, an Evening Standard seller, who had worked with Tomlinson for more than 20 years. He said Tomlinson had left the stall earlier than usual that day because they had run out of newspapers. Tomlinson’s widow, Julia Tomlinson, and his stepson, Paul King, also gave evidence at the inquest. Both described a loving father generous with his time and money, who was “idolised” by his four daughters and five stepchildren. Both also spoke of Tomlinson’s problem with alcoholism. Julia said: “He would always walk with his hands in his pockets and his head down, even from the living room to the kitchen. This was partly because he had a limited use of one of his hands from an old injury. But I think this was also because he didn’t like to impose himself – he didn’t want no bother.” Ian Tomlinson Police Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Jury sees images of the newspaper seller lying on the ground after being struck by a police officer at the G20 protests Disturbing new footage that shows Ian Tomlinson lying motionless on the ground shortly after being struck by a policeman at the G20 protests was shown to a jury during the opening day of the inquest into his death. Members of his family wept when the footage was played, revealing previously unseen images of the 47-year-old newspaper seller lying on the ground, being tended to by a female medical student. The jury of 11, attending the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London, was shown footage of Tomlinson and PC Simon Harwood, the officer filmed striking him moments before his collapse on 1 April 2009. Judge Peter Thornton QC, sitting as assistant deputy coroner, told the jury that Harwood, of the Met police’s territorial support group, was not on trial. “This is an inquest, not a public inquiry. But every inquest is an inquiry into the death. That involves looking at the circumstances in which the death arose, but not all of the much broader issues which a public inquiry might consider.” Thornton said that Harwood’s shoving of Tomlinson at 7.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings was unlikely to be contested. The jury saw footage of Harwood striking Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him hard in the back. Tomlinson was propelled and fell to the ground. “PC Harwood accepted later that he did those things, and he gave his reasons for doing them,” Thornton said. Tomlinson then walked about 100 metres along Cornhill before collapsing. He was pronounced dead at 8.10pm. Thornton said there was likely to be “controversy” over the medical evidence. Freddy Patel, the pathologist who did the first postmortem examination, concluded that Tomlinson died of coronary heart disease. Two other pathologists, Nat Cary and Kenneth Shorrock, said he died of internal bleeding. “It is likely to be a controversial area in the inquest,” Thornton said. “There is likely to be controversy about the finding by Dr Patel in the first postmortem about the presence of fluid in the abdomen and the extent it contained blood.” The jury was shown footage compiled by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, including video from CCTV cameras, bystanders and police helicopters. It included images obtained from trawling websites such as YouTube and was shown in two batches. The first batch showed Tomlinson at Monument tube station just before 7pm. He was repeatedly turned away from police cordons blocking his route home, before he appeared, at about 7.20pm, on Royal Exchange Buildings. He collapsed on the pavement at Cornhill about three minutes later. Lucy Apps, a medical student, went to his aid. Video showed riot officers arriving on the scene and moving her away. There was no evidence that protesters impeded police medics from treating Tomlinson, who was carried away by police minutes later. The second film batch followed Harwood. Fifteen minutes before he struck Tomlinson he tried to arrest a protester, dragging him into the crowd by his jacket. Harwood could have had confrontations with at least two other people in the minutes before his encounter with Tomlinson. Among the witnesses giving evidence at the hearing was Barry Smith, an Evening Standard seller, who had worked with Tomlinson for more than 20 years. He said Tomlinson had left the stall earlier than usual that day because they had run out of newspapers. Tomlinson’s widow, Julia Tomlinson, and his stepson, Paul King, also gave evidence at the inquest. Both described a loving father generous with his time and money, who was “idolised” by his four daughters and five stepchildren. Both also spoke of Tomlinson’s problem with alcoholism. Julia said: “He would always walk with his hands in his pockets and his head down, even from the living room to the kitchen. This was partly because he had a limited use of one of his hands from an old injury. But I think this was also because he didn’t like to impose himself – he didn’t want no bother.” Ian Tomlinson Police Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Latest attempt by UK courts to censor internet material has led to claims free speech is being further eroded A wealthy financier involved in a family dispute has made British legal history by winning anonymity in a libel case. This latest court attempt to censor internet material has led to claims that free speech is being further eroded in Britain. In a novel extension of controversial superinjunctions, Mr Justice Tugendhat forbade anyone in Britain from identifying “Mr Z”, who claims to have been defamed by his relatives in a row over a multimillion pound family trust. The judge ordered that the relatives’ identities also be kept secret, and that no-one be allowed to detail allegations aired in the secret hearings in the high court in London. His ruling was published under the coded title ZAM v CFW and TFW. This extreme, court-ordered secrecy followed threats on behalf of Z’s relations to publicise their accusations globally on the internet, where they could not be suppressed. Z told the judge the allegations were “entirely false”, and he was being blackmailed. No defence was produced that the accusations were true. Shortly after Tugendhat issued the gagging order, a lengthy set of allegations appeared online. Supposedly posted by a blogger in Niger, they accused Zof misappropriating money from the trust fund and of a sex offence. The judge’s ruling means the Guardian cannot provide any information that would help locate the posting on the internet. But the online document itself would appear to be immune to British court rulings. Google says of its service, blogspot.com , that it usually only censors illegal or hate-speech postings, and provides: “a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech”. People in other countries can continue to discuss the allegations. Sources claiming to be close to the man’s relatives told the Guardian that they were living in Italy, out of British jurisdiction. The “Niger blogger” had purportedly been sent court documents by accident, and could not now be prevented from circulating them. Superinjunctions, in which all details of court proceedings are concealed, have never been granted in cases of libel, as far as is known. They have been granted in kiss-and-tell or breach of confidence cases. A special legal committee investigating the controversial orders is due to report next month. In the most notorious case, the oil traders Trafigura last year briefly obtained a superinjunction against the Guardian to suppress a leaked report on its toxic waste dumping, which even prevented reporting proceedings in parliament. It is rare, though not unknown, for conventional injunctions to be granted in libel cases. These prevent the disputed allegations being repeated until a case is resolved. But it seems unprecedented, legal observers said, to in addition allow anonymity to all the parties. It is feared it may allow a flood of wealthy libel litigants to seek secrecy injunctions against the media. “This takes the epidemic of super-injunctions down a dangerous new path,” said John Kampfner, who heads the free speech body Index on Censorship, among the groups campaigning for reform of the libel laws. “Now they are being used not only to protect supposed privacy, but libel too.” Gavin Millar QC, a media specialist, said: “Courts are increasingly granting anonymity to claimants where withholding details of evidence used to be regarded as sufficient. This case seems to be more of the same. Open justice is suffering.” During the hearing on 3 March, Richard Spearman QC claimed it would be unfair to identify the financier, even though there was no truth in the allegations, because “the fact that [he] has had to seek relief would be capable of being made into a story in its own right and would be likely to lead to widespread speculation as to what story he has been concerned to prevent the defendants from telling”. The court was told that employers and other family members had been contacted with the allegations. Letters had been sent saying “Cleared for worldwide publication” and “on the verge of going viral” and mentioning the “worldwide web”. One letter said: “Will some evil person leak the entire proceedings and all the sordid details so that the irresponsible global media … can really get their teeth into them?” Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his ruling: “In this particular case, the public interest in open justice is better served by granting anonymity.” Superinjunctions: A threat to free speech? No one knows precisely how many superinjunctions have been issued. They are, by nature, secretive. An informed legal estimate is that as many as 20 have been granted in the UK over the past 18 months. Their notoriety stems from a case in October 2009 involving the oil trading firm Trafigura. The solicitors Carter Ruck warned the Guardian that it would be in contempt of court if it published a parliamentary question about the company. The extraordinary powers attributed to the gagging order triggered alarm about threats to freedom of expression and transparency of justice. Some lawyers caution that the term “superinjunction” is used too loosely. It might be narrowly defined as a court order prohibiting its existence from being revealed and in which the parties are in some way or another rendered anonymous. In recent months, because of criticism of their clandestine nature, judges have become reluctant to grant superinjunctions so readily and shown a preference for anonymised orders where few details are provided. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, is chairing a committee examining the use of super injunctions. It is due to report before Easter. In a speech earlier this month, Lord Neuberger recognised that there is a problem. “The concern over super injunctions is that they have, as Professor Zuckerman has put it, developed into an entirely secret form of procedure,” he said. “As he put it, ‘English administration of justice has not [previously] allowed’, that is ‘for the entire legal process to be conducted out of the public view and for its very existence to be kept permanently secret under pain of contempt. “English law has not known of such a procedure – of secret justice – since 5 July 1641, when the Long Parliament abolished the Court of Star Chamber.” Elsewhere Zuckerman has attacked super injunctions as “curiousity suppressant orders” that undermine the rule of law. Another variant is the hyperinjunction, a term used for an order which attempted to ban an individual from contacting his MP. The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who used the protection of parliamentary privilege to talk about it, said the order dated from 2005. Many superinjunctions relate to prominent footballers to prevent allegations about their private lives being published. An injunction awarded to Chelsea captain John Terry preventing the reporting of an alleged affair was repealed earlier this year. Owen Bowcott Libel reform Internet Media law David Leigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Latest attempt by UK courts to censor internet material has led to claims free speech is being further eroded A wealthy financier involved in a family dispute has made British legal history by winning anonymity in a libel case. This latest court attempt to censor internet material has led to claims that free speech is being further eroded in Britain. In a novel extension of controversial superinjunctions, Mr Justice Tugendhat forbade anyone in Britain from identifying “Mr Z”, who claims to have been defamed by his relatives in a row over a multimillion pound family trust. The judge ordered that the relatives’ identities also be kept secret, and that no-one be allowed to detail allegations aired in the secret hearings in the high court in London. His ruling was published under the coded title ZAM v CFW and TFW. This extreme, court-ordered secrecy followed threats on behalf of Z’s relations to publicise their accusations globally on the internet, where they could not be suppressed. Z told the judge the allegations were “entirely false”, and he was being blackmailed. No defence was produced that the accusations were true. Shortly after Tugendhat issued the gagging order, a lengthy set of allegations appeared online. Supposedly posted by a blogger in Niger, they accused Zof misappropriating money from the trust fund and of a sex offence. The judge’s ruling means the Guardian cannot provide any information that would help locate the posting on the internet. But the online document itself would appear to be immune to British court rulings. Google says of its service, blogspot.com , that it usually only censors illegal or hate-speech postings, and provides: “a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech”. People in other countries can continue to discuss the allegations. Sources claiming to be close to the man’s relatives told the Guardian that they were living in Italy, out of British jurisdiction. The “Niger blogger” had purportedly been sent court documents by accident, and could not now be prevented from circulating them. Superinjunctions, in which all details of court proceedings are concealed, have never been granted in cases of libel, as far as is known. They have been granted in kiss-and-tell or breach of confidence cases. A special legal committee investigating the controversial orders is due to report next month. In the most notorious case, the oil traders Trafigura last year briefly obtained a superinjunction against the Guardian to suppress a leaked report on its toxic waste dumping, which even prevented reporting proceedings in parliament. It is rare, though not unknown, for conventional injunctions to be granted in libel cases. These prevent the disputed allegations being repeated until a case is resolved. But it seems unprecedented, legal observers said, to in addition allow anonymity to all the parties. It is feared it may allow a flood of wealthy libel litigants to seek secrecy injunctions against the media. “This takes the epidemic of super-injunctions down a dangerous new path,” said John Kampfner, who heads the free speech body Index on Censorship, among the groups campaigning for reform of the libel laws. “Now they are being used not only to protect supposed privacy, but libel too.” Gavin Millar QC, a media specialist, said: “Courts are increasingly granting anonymity to claimants where withholding details of evidence used to be regarded as sufficient. This case seems to be more of the same. Open justice is suffering.” During the hearing on 3 March, Richard Spearman QC claimed it would be unfair to identify the financier, even though there was no truth in the allegations, because “the fact that [he] has had to seek relief would be capable of being made into a story in its own right and would be likely to lead to widespread speculation as to what story he has been concerned to prevent the defendants from telling”. The court was told that employers and other family members had been contacted with the allegations. Letters had been sent saying “Cleared for worldwide publication” and “on the verge of going viral” and mentioning the “worldwide web”. One letter said: “Will some evil person leak the entire proceedings and all the sordid details so that the irresponsible global media … can really get their teeth into them?” Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his ruling: “In this particular case, the public interest in open justice is better served by granting anonymity.” Superinjunctions: A threat to free speech? No one knows precisely how many superinjunctions have been issued. They are, by nature, secretive. An informed legal estimate is that as many as 20 have been granted in the UK over the past 18 months. Their notoriety stems from a case in October 2009 involving the oil trading firm Trafigura. The solicitors Carter Ruck warned the Guardian that it would be in contempt of court if it published a parliamentary question about the company. The extraordinary powers attributed to the gagging order triggered alarm about threats to freedom of expression and transparency of justice. Some lawyers caution that the term “superinjunction” is used too loosely. It might be narrowly defined as a court order prohibiting its existence from being revealed and in which the parties are in some way or another rendered anonymous. In recent months, because of criticism of their clandestine nature, judges have become reluctant to grant superinjunctions so readily and shown a preference for anonymised orders where few details are provided. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, is chairing a committee examining the use of super injunctions. It is due to report before Easter. In a speech earlier this month, Lord Neuberger recognised that there is a problem. “The concern over super injunctions is that they have, as Professor Zuckerman has put it, developed into an entirely secret form of procedure,” he said. “As he put it, ‘English administration of justice has not [previously] allowed’, that is ‘for the entire legal process to be conducted out of the public view and for its very existence to be kept permanently secret under pain of contempt. “English law has not known of such a procedure – of secret justice – since 5 July 1641, when the Long Parliament abolished the Court of Star Chamber.” Elsewhere Zuckerman has attacked super injunctions as “curiousity suppressant orders” that undermine the rule of law. Another variant is the hyperinjunction, a term used for an order which attempted to ban an individual from contacting his MP. The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who used the protection of parliamentary privilege to talk about it, said the order dated from 2005. Many superinjunctions relate to prominent footballers to prevent allegations about their private lives being published. An injunction awarded to Chelsea captain John Terry preventing the reporting of an alleged affair was repealed earlier this year. Owen Bowcott Libel reform Internet Media law David Leigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Latest attempt by UK courts to censor internet material has led to claims free speech is being further eroded A wealthy financier involved in a family dispute has made British legal history by winning anonymity in a libel case. This latest court attempt to censor internet material has led to claims that free speech is being further eroded in Britain. In a novel extension of controversial superinjunctions, Mr Justice Tugendhat forbade anyone in Britain from identifying “Mr Z”, who claims to have been defamed by his relatives in a row over a multimillion pound family trust. The judge ordered that the relatives’ identities also be kept secret, and that no-one be allowed to detail allegations aired in the secret hearings in the high court in London. His ruling was published under the coded title ZAM v CFW and TFW. This extreme, court-ordered secrecy followed threats on behalf of Z’s relations to publicise their accusations globally on the internet, where they could not be suppressed. Z told the judge the allegations were “entirely false”, and he was being blackmailed. No defence was produced that the accusations were true. Shortly after Tugendhat issued the gagging order, a lengthy set of allegations appeared online. Supposedly posted by a blogger in Niger, they accused Zof misappropriating money from the trust fund and of a sex offence. The judge’s ruling means the Guardian cannot provide any information that would help locate the posting on the internet. But the online document itself would appear to be immune to British court rulings. Google says of its service, blogspot.com , that it usually only censors illegal or hate-speech postings, and provides: “a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech”. People in other countries can continue to discuss the allegations. Sources claiming to be close to the man’s relatives told the Guardian that they were living in Italy, out of British jurisdiction. The “Niger blogger” had purportedly been sent court documents by accident, and could not now be prevented from circulating them. Superinjunctions, in which all details of court proceedings are concealed, have never been granted in cases of libel, as far as is known. They have been granted in kiss-and-tell or breach of confidence cases. A special legal committee investigating the controversial orders is due to report next month. In the most notorious case, the oil traders Trafigura last year briefly obtained a superinjunction against the Guardian to suppress a leaked report on its toxic waste dumping, which even prevented reporting proceedings in parliament. It is rare, though not unknown, for conventional injunctions to be granted in libel cases. These prevent the disputed allegations being repeated until a case is resolved. But it seems unprecedented, legal observers said, to in addition allow anonymity to all the parties. It is feared it may allow a flood of wealthy libel litigants to seek secrecy injunctions against the media. “This takes the epidemic of super-injunctions down a dangerous new path,” said John Kampfner, who heads the free speech body Index on Censorship, among the groups campaigning for reform of the libel laws. “Now they are being used not only to protect supposed privacy, but libel too.” Gavin Millar QC, a media specialist, said: “Courts are increasingly granting anonymity to claimants where withholding details of evidence used to be regarded as sufficient. This case seems to be more of the same. Open justice is suffering.” During the hearing on 3 March, Richard Spearman QC claimed it would be unfair to identify the financier, even though there was no truth in the allegations, because “the fact that [he] has had to seek relief would be capable of being made into a story in its own right and would be likely to lead to widespread speculation as to what story he has been concerned to prevent the defendants from telling”. The court was told that employers and other family members had been contacted with the allegations. Letters had been sent saying “Cleared for worldwide publication” and “on the verge of going viral” and mentioning the “worldwide web”. One letter said: “Will some evil person leak the entire proceedings and all the sordid details so that the irresponsible global media … can really get their teeth into them?” Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his ruling: “In this particular case, the public interest in open justice is better served by granting anonymity.” Superinjunctions: A threat to free speech? No one knows precisely how many superinjunctions have been issued. They are, by nature, secretive. An informed legal estimate is that as many as 20 have been granted in the UK over the past 18 months. Their notoriety stems from a case in October 2009 involving the oil trading firm Trafigura. The solicitors Carter Ruck warned the Guardian that it would be in contempt of court if it published a parliamentary question about the company. The extraordinary powers attributed to the gagging order triggered alarm about threats to freedom of expression and transparency of justice. Some lawyers caution that the term “superinjunction” is used too loosely. It might be narrowly defined as a court order prohibiting its existence from being revealed and in which the parties are in some way or another rendered anonymous. In recent months, because of criticism of their clandestine nature, judges have become reluctant to grant superinjunctions so readily and shown a preference for anonymised orders where few details are provided. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, is chairing a committee examining the use of super injunctions. It is due to report before Easter. In a speech earlier this month, Lord Neuberger recognised that there is a problem. “The concern over super injunctions is that they have, as Professor Zuckerman has put it, developed into an entirely secret form of procedure,” he said. “As he put it, ‘English administration of justice has not [previously] allowed’, that is ‘for the entire legal process to be conducted out of the public view and for its very existence to be kept permanently secret under pain of contempt. “English law has not known of such a procedure – of secret justice – since 5 July 1641, when the Long Parliament abolished the Court of Star Chamber.” Elsewhere Zuckerman has attacked super injunctions as “curiousity suppressant orders” that undermine the rule of law. Another variant is the hyperinjunction, a term used for an order which attempted to ban an individual from contacting his MP. The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who used the protection of parliamentary privilege to talk about it, said the order dated from 2005. Many superinjunctions relate to prominent footballers to prevent allegations about their private lives being published. An injunction awarded to Chelsea captain John Terry preventing the reporting of an alleged affair was repealed earlier this year. Owen Bowcott Libel reform Internet Media law David Leigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Donald Trump’s Birtherism: Beyond stupidity and gullibility, now he’s just lying
March 29, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Donald Trump was interviewed by phone by Greta Van Susteren yesterday and doubled down yet again on his Birtherism : TRUMP: What does this have to do with race? This has absolutely nothing to do with race. The fact is that if you look at what’s happened with respect to this birth certificate issue, he doesn’t have it, he’s spent millions of dollars on lawyers trying to get out of the issue, they give what’s called a certificate of live birth, which doesn’t even have a signature on it — and anybody can get a certificate of live birth — it’s nothing to do with a birth certificate. And they are really reeling! Now, they talk all sorts of things. You don’t have a doctor or a nurse — this is the president of the United States, and no doctor, no nurse, nobody’s come forward saying, ‘I delivered that beautiful baby.’ There’s so many things! Even if you look at the newspaper, the so-called newspaper article in Hawaii — that was days after he was born! So, that wasn’t like when he was born! And if you really think about a couple of things — whoever took a newspaper advertisement — now these were poor people. These aren’t rich people. Whoever took a newspaper advertisement to announce the birth of your baby? Now, I don’t think you know of anybody, and I know of nobody — and I know poor people and rich people, but I’ve never heard of taking a newspaper ad to advertise that you have a baby. All Trump is really doing is proving his stupidity and gullibility — not exactly desirable qualities in a president. At the very least, he’s demonstrating how clueless and out of touch a rich guy he really is. Here’s the newspaper birth announcement in question: enlarge This is from FactCheck.org, which explains that a pro-Hillary/anti-Obama blogger first dug this up from the Honolulu Advertiser’s archives of Sunday, Aug. 31, 1961. This isn’t an advertisement — rather, this is a standard newspaper birth announcement. You see, in the old days, before large corporations took over newspapers and forced them to gradually eviscerate their newsgathering functions, newspapers sent out their cops-and-courts reporters about once a week to collect all the previous week’s birth listings from local hospitals. (This practice has long since fallen by numerous newsroom-budget-cutting waysides.) In other words, the Advertiser announcement was collected by the paper itself and stands as independent corroboration that Obama was born in a Honolulu hospital. The fact that Trump doesn’t know of anyone who has their birth listed in the paper by anything other than an ad indicates how out of touch this rich man really is. And while we’re mentioning the young couple’s poverty … does Trump really believe that both Barack Obama Sr. and a very pregnant Stanley Ann Dunham-Obama were able to make what was in 1961 a long and difficult and expensive journey to Kenya for young Barack’s birth, and then return in time for Barack Sr. to resume his fall classes in Hawaii? As for why no doctor has turned up claiming to have overseen Obama’s birth, well, that would be because he is dead. The doctor in question was Dr. Rodney T. West, a since-deceased obstetrician who told his friends about Obama’s birth at the time in a memorable fashion — memorable enough that they wrote it down, like his friend Barbara Nelson: “I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “‘So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls. His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.” The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama. “I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it,” said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the “Stanley” connection. She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name. “I remember Dr. West saying ‘Barack Hussein Obama, now that’s a musical name,’” said Nelson, who grew up in Kenmore and went to Hawaii in 1959 to be in Jo-Anne’s wedding party. When Nelson was offered a job as a newspaper reporter and photographer at her friend’s wedding reception, it led to her living in Hawaii for 47 years. She returned to Kenmore in 2006. As for the “Certificate of Live Birth” Obama has presented since 2008, Trump is simply lying when he claims that “anybody can get” one; the state of Hawaii, in fact, only hands them out to people it can certify were born there. (The lack of a signature is utterly insignificant; many — in fact, most — states feature no signatures on their birth certificates.) As we explained to Sean Hannity : 3. This birth certificate is the same birth certificate anyone born in Hawaii would present as proof of citizenship. “Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations,” Okubo said. “With that form, you can get your passport or your soccer registration or your driver’s license.” 4. The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu. “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. “No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.” The continued dispute that Hannity and Trump seem to think is so significant is so important, in fact, is over the privacy-protected medical records of Obama’s birth — what the Birthers are calling his “long form birth certificate,” but are in fact the private medical records of his birth kept at the hospital, containing large amounts of personal medical information about Obama’s mother, including gynecological data. And as Hawaii officials have explained numerous times, these records are protected by privacy laws, and for perfectly sound reasons: Hawai’i’s disclosure law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes 338-18) states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part on any such record … ” The law further states that the Health Department “shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.” Those who have “direct and tangible interest” are generally limited to the person named in the record, the spouse, parent, descendant, or personal representative, or by someone who is involved in marital, parental or death litigation involving the named person’s vital record or other legal reason established by a court order, and various official agency or organization representatives, including the state director of health, according to the law. This, ultimately, is where we get into the question of race. As we already asked of Trump: Is a birth certificate acceptable to every known authority for every other citizen of that state somehow unacceptable proof of citizenship for presidential candidates? Or do they believe that every candidate for president should have to release for public review the private medical records, including personal medical information about their late mothers, of their own births? Once again: If the answer to either of these is “no,” then why are they demanding it only of Barack Obama — while simultaneously talking about his five years spent in Indonesia? Because that’s when it becomes obvious that the problem isn’t where Obama was born. It’s his racial heritage. And the utter mendaciousness of the attack — not to mention the fact that Fox is blithely providing trump a platform for this nonsense — reeks of a Swift Boat attack to me. That may be why we’re seeing this.
Continue reading …
Airport operator breakup moves step closer as Competition Commission asks interested parties to look again at ruling on BAA’s monopoly Ferrovial, the Spanish industrial group, could on Wednesday move one step closer to the break-up of BAA, the British airports operator it bought five years ago for £10bn. Almost exactly two years ago, the Competition Commission ordered BAA to sell Stansted, Gatwick and either Glasgow or Edinburgh, arguing that the group had a monopoly. BAA, backed by Ferrovial, successfully appealed on a technicality, but the competition watchdog overturned it and the court of appeal reinstated its original ruling. The Competition Commission will now ask interested parties if anything has changed in the intervening two years to make its ruling invalid. Ferrovial has spent the last two years selling off assets – including Gatwick – which has helped it avoid producing a second consecutive annual loss. Selling more BAA airports will boost the coffers further. Ferrovial is also in talks with potential investors to offload a 10% stake in BAA. The sale would take its current 56% stake below the crucial 50% level, allowing it to deconsolidate the debt, wiping €14bn of debt from its balance sheet at a stroke. Ferrovial may be best known in Britain as the owner of BAA, but it also builds roads, bridges, railways and other infrastructure, as well as large commercial buildings such as hotels and offices. Almost two-thirds of its revenues come from outside recession-hit Spain. It has been a torrid couple of years for Ferrovial. Its share price has slumped in over concerns about higher debt costs and slumping public spending on infrastructure projects in Spain in particular and, to a lesser extent, Britain. Construction activity has also severely contracted in Spain because of the economic downturn. Ferrovial president Rafael del Pino recently urged the Spanish government, since it had got the deficit under control, to loosen the purse springs for public investment in infrastructure, citing Brazil and Britain as examples to imitate. The Spanish government has announced a €70bn programme to kickstart the economy with new infrastructure projects, such as more high speed rail links bypassing the capital, in line with the trend for the increasing regionalisation of Spain. But these projects are a long way off. The government also recently announced as part of the privatisation of its airports that it will invite companies to bid to run two of Spain’s biggest airports – Madrid’s Barajas and Barcelona – which could interest Ferrovial. BAA Travel & leisure Air transport Transport Recession Tim Webb guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …NBC, CBS Morning Shows Gloss Over Low Support for Obama’s Libya Attacks, Harsh Criticism
March 29, 2011 No CommentOnly Good Morning America's Jake Tapper on Tuesday pointed out the relatively low public support for Barack Obama's military actions in Libya and the harsh criticism from both the right and the left. On NBC's Today, Chuck Todd parroted, “[Obama] also took the opportunity to rebut critics on the left and the right about how and whether to target Qadhafi with the military. In total the President used the framework of American values to make the case.” On CBS's Early Show, Bill Plante explained, “The President defended his decision to use military force in Libya, he said that when the interests and values of the U.S. are at stake, he has a moral obligation to act.” Good Morning America's Jake Tapper, on the other hand, highlighted both the economic cost and the poor poll numbers. Tapper explained, ” The public, too, is deeply divided. Less than 50 percent of Americans support the military actions and taxpayers are facing a heavy price tag.” Tapper, uniquely, added, “192 Tomahawk missiles at $1.4 million each. $10,000 an hour for each jet and the first week of military action alone? More than $600 million .” The ABC reporter featured clips of Republicans such as Sarah Palin, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Democrat Dennis Kucinich criticizing the President. To be fair, McCain did appear on the Early Show. But, co-host Erica Hill did not mention the cost or the low poll numbers. Over on Today, Todd rather than quote or feature critics such as McCain, he merely summarized: “Despite this being a foreign policy speech, the congressional reaction is split harshly along partisan lines with Republicans upset about the lack of a time line for an exit strategy and even John McCain being upset that the President didn't want to use the military to dictate regime change.” A transcript of the March 29 GMA segment can be found below: JAKE TAPPER: President Obama described last night how a confluence of events compelled the U.S. to act. The U.S. having a unique ability to stop a massacre, a moral and strategic case to act and, of course, broad support for the action throughout the world. But, George, that did not stop the President's critics. The President said they were a special set of circumstances. BARACK OBAMA: The United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre and establish a no-fly zone. TAPPER: Also clearly informing his decisions were lessons from two previous presidents. Why would the U.S. not militarily seek regime change in Libya? OBAMA: To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. TAPPER: But, also the responsibility to prevent a massacre, as did not happen in the former Yugoslavia during Bill Clinton's tenure in 1995. OBAMA: As President, I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action. TAPPER: The critics quickly came out swinging. From the right- SARAH PALIN: That was a profoundly disappointing speech because it proved that President Obama doctrine is still full of chaos and questions. It's dodgy. It's dubious. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): We are now fighting on the side of the pro- the anti-Qadhafi rebels. We are paving the way for them. He should acknowledge that. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): It was almost too late. If we had done this three weeks ago, it would be over. TAPPER: -and from the left. REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH): People have to understand that we're sacrificing our domestic agenda here. TAPPER: The public, too, is deeply divided. Less than 50 percent of Americans support the military actions and taxpayers are facing a heavy price tag. 192 Tomahawk missiles at $1.4 million each. $10,000 an hour for each jet and the first week of military action alone? More than $600 million. By comparison in Afghanistan, it costs twice that each week. But that's a war with over 100,000 troops on the ground. And President Obama did not offer much by way of cost. That price tag for this action still remains elusive as does an end game. Although President Obama did say he anticipated Qadhafi would desperately cling to power, perhaps setting the stage for a long and protracted conflict. — Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter .
Continue reading …
Bashar al-Assad is expected to lift emergency laws and announce a crackdown on corruption in a speech Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has sacked his cabinet and suggested significant reforms in his first public intervention in a 10-day-old nationwide uprising. The authoritarian leader, whose silence so far has provoked anger among his people, is expected to deliver the most important speech of his career on Wednesday as he tries to win the trust of a rebellious Syrian people insisting on widespread reform and democratic freedoms. Assad is likely to lift emergency laws, which outlaw public gatherings, and introduce a corruption crackdown in a bid to stay ahead of the revolutionary current sweeping the Middle East. Protests of the scale seen over the past week are unprecedented in Syria, where one of the region’s most formidable police states has crushed dissent, but largely delivered stability for more than four decades. Large pro-government demonstrations were held in the capital Damascus on Tuesday, a week after running street battles between demonstrators and security forces who opened fire on them in the southern city of Deraa and the northern port of Latakia. They came as Assad, who succeeded his father, Hafez al-Assad, as president in 2000 and has ruled with the same unchecked power, was clearly calculating how to deliver concessions that would appease citizens without being seen to capitulate to them. “What we have in Syria is not yet a revolution. It is unrest in pursuit of legitimate reform,” a Syrian official said. “Assad is a popular president. If there was a vote tomorrow, I think he would win 60% or maybe more. “We have the problem of economic corruption but not political corruption. Assad has a lot of credit in the bank. He needs to cash it in or else we are heading for the unknown. Whatever happens, Syria has changed. The wall of fear for expressing your views has collapsed.” Syria’s protesters have been galvanised by the region’s uprisings and Assad faces a difficult task of convincing the country’s largely impoverished citizens that his old guard can offer the same political buy-in that was triumphantly seized by demonstrators in Tunisia and Egypt. “This is what this is all about for us,” said a Syrian businessman in the Lebanese capital, Beirut. “We want the same opportunity that everyone else is getting. We will not be taken for granted any more.” Another Syrian, who also refused to be named, outlined the fear felt by many in Damascus as the tide of full-blown revolt draws near. “There are a lot of people invested in the status quo,” he said. “And there are good reasons for that. Stability has been paramount in Syria and it is a formula that has delivered safety for many and success for some.” Syria’s ruling class almost exclusively stems from an Alawite sect, which is an offshoot of Shia Islam. Its citizens are majority Sunni Muslims, along with Christian and Druze minorities. Syria has long been prominent in the geopolitics of the region, but has taken on increasing importance over the past three years as the United States has tried to disengage it from Iran, which acts as a main patron. Israel has also tried to lever Syria free from Iran and from the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah. While the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has condemned the use of violence by security forces, US politicians have been restrained in their criticism, describing Assad as a reformer and insisting that the western military intervention to protect civilians in Libya will not be repeated in Syria. The US recently sent an ambassador to Damascus after an absence of more than five years, during which the Bush White House had accused Assad of allowing his border with Iraq to be used as a turnstile for insurgents fighting US troops. However, suspicions have remained about Syria’s role in the region and its motivations, with near neighbours Iraq and Lebanon convinced that its rulers are continuing to play a pervasive role in their countries. “That is why we are looking at what is happening to Assad with such utter fascination,” said one Lebanese member of parliament. “The circle has turned for him and he is learning that he can no longer get by with the thuggish ways of the past.” As has been the case in Libya and Bahrain, Syria’s rulers have blamed the uprising on outside forces. Buthaina Shaaban, a top adviser to Assad, said that “armed gangs” had been responsible for the chaos. Anti-foreigner sentiment is running high and numerous reporters have been deported. The government has mounted an intensive propaganda campaign, sending demonstrators to the streets of the capital. On Saturday hundreds of families drove through the city waving flags and chanting “God, Syria and Bashar only”. Syria Bashar Al-Assad Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Megyn Kelly and Lou Dobbs are Terribly Concerned About the Wisconsin Recall Efforts
March 29, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Remember when Lou Dobbs was on CNN trying to pretend that he was somehow looking out for the working class in America with his reporting on outsourcing and as his series he called ” The War on the Middle Class ?” I used to have an ounce of respect for the man and some of his reporting before he lost his damned mind over the immigration issue and then further lost his mind and went full birther on us after a black man dared to think he could be President of the United States. He got booted off of CNN for his over the top fear mongering on the immigration issue, but he had already proven during his time there that he hated unions . He’s shown himself to be nothing but another corporate shill willing do whatever it takes to make a buck with his recent move to the Fox Business Channel that Kelly touted at the end of this segment with him. He was more than happy during this segment here to help Megyn Kelly sound the alarm on those evil union members looking like they’re possibly going to have some success in the recall efforts in Wisconsin. So much for him being a man of the working people which he clearly showed us he was not a long time ago. Sorry Lou, but when you attack unions and are doing the bidding of the Koch brothers and their allies, you’re attacking their members and the working class, because they are the union. Chris Bowers has more on that in his article at DailyKOS which I’m posting in full here since it was a very short post there to begin with and the content there needs to be spread as far and wide as possible to get the word out to help get these Republicans recalled in Wisconsin. Republicans getting scared about Wisconsin recall : Fox News is sounding the alarm bells in Wisconsin: Their fear is well-grounded. For example, some local organizers are now saying they have surpassed the number of recall petition signatures required against Rpublican state Senator Randy Hopper’s district: Efforts to recall Republican State Senator Randy Hopper from Fon du Lac have reached another milestone, as organizers issue a call for volunteers to turn in any remaining petitions to be counted. Organizer Scott Dillman says he’s sure they have enough signatures to trigger the recall, but he can’t give exact figures yet. He says, processing all the information they’ve collected so far will take a week. Meanwhile, your ad campaign against Randy Hopper is now live. Since 7 am, central time, Monday morning, it has recorded over 400,000 impressions in Randy Hopper’s district. There are only 175,000 people in Randy Hopper’s district. It will run until Monday, April 4th. We’ve got a full-service range of ways to contribute to the recall effort at Orange to Blue now. Please, chip in $5 to help out. And here’s one more link from ActBlue where you can donate towards the recall effort in Wisconsin .
Continue reading …