Tamils at risk of being detained and tortured as result of UK Border Agency action, claims Freedom from Torture Britain is being urged to halt plans to deport a planeload of Tamils to Sri Lanka on Wednesday amid fears they will be at risk of being detained and tortured on arrival. Up to 50 failed asylum seekers are due to be forcibly removed from the country aboard an aircraft chartered by the UK Border Agency. The plan has alarmed a number of NGOs, including a medical charity that treats victims of torture, which fears the British government cannot be sure that those deported will be safe in Sri Lanka. Freedom from Torture, formerly known as the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, said it received 199 referrals for clinical assistance for Sri Lankans last year and a similar number this year. It said it had clinical evidence that a number of these people have been tortured in Sri Lanka since the end of the civil war in May 2009, some after being returned to the country. The NGOs are warning there is credible evidence that torture is still taking place and anyone suspected of being linked to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), or Tamil Tigers, is particularly at risk. Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, said the British government “needed to be extremely careful” about returning any Tamils to Sri Lanka. Brad Adams, the organisation’s Asia director, said: “The Sri Lankan government continues to show shocking disregard for the due process rights of anyone deemed linked to the Tamil Tigers. Those detained have been tortured and ‘disappeared’.” Amnesty International said it had documented evidence that failed asylum seekers had suffered torture in Sri Lanka after being removed from Australia. In an account given to Freedom from Torture, one said: “They tortured me by removing my clothes and hitting me with burning irons. They kept me for two days and my body was all swollen. They showed me photographs of LTTE members, including my brother’s picture, and asked me what he was doing now.” Keith Best, the chief executive of Freedom from Torture, has written to Damian Green, the Home Office immigration minister asking whether any arrangements are in place to ensure the safety of people removed to Sri Lanka. He said: “I know you will be mindful of the repercussions for the reputation of the UK if those who are returned then face torture.” The UK Border Agency deported 555 people to Sri Lanka last year, 235 of them failed asylum seekers. Three months ago, Human Rights Watch warned Theresa May, the home secretary, that a group of 26 people facing deportation on a single flight were “at significant risk of persecution” in Sri Lanka. That deportation went ahead, with the government saying the Border Agency was “not aware of any difficulties” that those individuals may have subsequently faced. An agency spokesperson said: “We only undertake returns to Sri Lanka when we are satisfied the individual has no international protection needs. The European court of human rights has ruled that not all Tamil asylum seekers require protection.” But the agency would not say what arrangements, if any, the British government had in place to monitor the treatment of those who were returned. The agency also declined to identify the airport from which the plane is due to depart on Wednesday afternoon. The Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers were both accused of committing war crimes towards the end of the civil war. A US diplomatic cable leaked to WikiLeaks showed that American diplomats believed the Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, bore responsibility for many of the alleged crimes. The US ambassador in Colombo, Patricia Butenis, wrote that one of the reasons there was such little progress towards a genuine Sri Lankan inquiry was that Rajapaksa and his former army commander, Sarath Fonseka, were largely responsible, and that “there are no examples we know of a regime undertaking wholesale investigations of its own troops or senior officials for war crimes while that regime or government remained in power”. Sri Lanka Immigration and asylum Torture Human rights Ian Cobain guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Tamils at risk of being detained and tortured as result of UK Border Agency action, claims Freedom from Torture Britain is being urged to halt plans to deport a planeload of Tamils to Sri Lanka on Wednesday amid fears they will be at risk of being detained and tortured on arrival. Up to 50 failed asylum seekers are due to be forcibly removed from the country aboard an aircraft chartered by the UK Border Agency. The plan has alarmed a number of NGOs, including a medical charity that treats victims of torture, which fears the British government cannot be sure that those deported will be safe in Sri Lanka. Freedom from Torture, formerly known as the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, said it received 199 referrals for clinical assistance for Sri Lankans last year and a similar number this year. It said it had clinical evidence that a number of these people have been tortured in Sri Lanka since the end of the civil war in May 2009, some after being returned to the country. The NGOs are warning there is credible evidence that torture is still taking place and anyone suspected of being linked to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), or Tamil Tigers, is particularly at risk. Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, said the British government “needed to be extremely careful” about returning any Tamils to Sri Lanka. Brad Adams, the organisation’s Asia director, said: “The Sri Lankan government continues to show shocking disregard for the due process rights of anyone deemed linked to the Tamil Tigers. Those detained have been tortured and ‘disappeared’.” Amnesty International said it had documented evidence that failed asylum seekers had suffered torture in Sri Lanka after being removed from Australia. In an account given to Freedom from Torture, one said: “They tortured me by removing my clothes and hitting me with burning irons. They kept me for two days and my body was all swollen. They showed me photographs of LTTE members, including my brother’s picture, and asked me what he was doing now.” Keith Best, the chief executive of Freedom from Torture, has written to Damian Green, the Home Office immigration minister asking whether any arrangements are in place to ensure the safety of people removed to Sri Lanka. He said: “I know you will be mindful of the repercussions for the reputation of the UK if those who are returned then face torture.” The UK Border Agency deported 555 people to Sri Lanka last year, 235 of them failed asylum seekers. Three months ago, Human Rights Watch warned Theresa May, the home secretary, that a group of 26 people facing deportation on a single flight were “at significant risk of persecution” in Sri Lanka. That deportation went ahead, with the government saying the Border Agency was “not aware of any difficulties” that those individuals may have subsequently faced. An agency spokesperson said: “We only undertake returns to Sri Lanka when we are satisfied the individual has no international protection needs. The European court of human rights has ruled that not all Tamil asylum seekers require protection.” But the agency would not say what arrangements, if any, the British government had in place to monitor the treatment of those who were returned. The agency also declined to identify the airport from which the plane is due to depart on Wednesday afternoon. The Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers were both accused of committing war crimes towards the end of the civil war. A US diplomatic cable leaked to WikiLeaks showed that American diplomats believed the Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, bore responsibility for many of the alleged crimes. The US ambassador in Colombo, Patricia Butenis, wrote that one of the reasons there was such little progress towards a genuine Sri Lankan inquiry was that Rajapaksa and his former army commander, Sarath Fonseka, were largely responsible, and that “there are no examples we know of a regime undertaking wholesale investigations of its own troops or senior officials for war crimes while that regime or government remained in power”. Sri Lanka Immigration and asylum Torture Human rights Ian Cobain guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Tamils at risk of being detained and tortured as result of UK Border Agency action, claims Freedom from Torture Britain is being urged to halt plans to deport a planeload of Tamils to Sri Lanka on Wednesday amid fears they will be at risk of being detained and tortured on arrival. Up to 50 failed asylum seekers are due to be forcibly removed from the country aboard an aircraft chartered by the UK Border Agency. The plan has alarmed a number of NGOs, including a medical charity that treats victims of torture, which fears the British government cannot be sure that those deported will be safe in Sri Lanka. Freedom from Torture, formerly known as the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, said it received 199 referrals for clinical assistance for Sri Lankans last year and a similar number this year. It said it had clinical evidence that a number of these people have been tortured in Sri Lanka since the end of the civil war in May 2009, some after being returned to the country. The NGOs are warning there is credible evidence that torture is still taking place and anyone suspected of being linked to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), or Tamil Tigers, is particularly at risk. Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, said the British government “needed to be extremely careful” about returning any Tamils to Sri Lanka. Brad Adams, the organisation’s Asia director, said: “The Sri Lankan government continues to show shocking disregard for the due process rights of anyone deemed linked to the Tamil Tigers. Those detained have been tortured and ‘disappeared’.” Amnesty International said it had documented evidence that failed asylum seekers had suffered torture in Sri Lanka after being removed from Australia. In an account given to Freedom from Torture, one said: “They tortured me by removing my clothes and hitting me with burning irons. They kept me for two days and my body was all swollen. They showed me photographs of LTTE members, including my brother’s picture, and asked me what he was doing now.” Keith Best, the chief executive of Freedom from Torture, has written to Damian Green, the Home Office immigration minister asking whether any arrangements are in place to ensure the safety of people removed to Sri Lanka. He said: “I know you will be mindful of the repercussions for the reputation of the UK if those who are returned then face torture.” The UK Border Agency deported 555 people to Sri Lanka last year, 235 of them failed asylum seekers. Three months ago, Human Rights Watch warned Theresa May, the home secretary, that a group of 26 people facing deportation on a single flight were “at significant risk of persecution” in Sri Lanka. That deportation went ahead, with the government saying the Border Agency was “not aware of any difficulties” that those individuals may have subsequently faced. An agency spokesperson said: “We only undertake returns to Sri Lanka when we are satisfied the individual has no international protection needs. The European court of human rights has ruled that not all Tamil asylum seekers require protection.” But the agency would not say what arrangements, if any, the British government had in place to monitor the treatment of those who were returned. The agency also declined to identify the airport from which the plane is due to depart on Wednesday afternoon. The Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers were both accused of committing war crimes towards the end of the civil war. A US diplomatic cable leaked to WikiLeaks showed that American diplomats believed the Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, bore responsibility for many of the alleged crimes. The US ambassador in Colombo, Patricia Butenis, wrote that one of the reasons there was such little progress towards a genuine Sri Lankan inquiry was that Rajapaksa and his former army commander, Sarath Fonseka, were largely responsible, and that “there are no examples we know of a regime undertaking wholesale investigations of its own troops or senior officials for war crimes while that regime or government remained in power”. Sri Lanka Immigration and asylum Torture Human rights Ian Cobain guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Exam board suggested awarding bonus points to students from low-performing schools who achieve top grades Politicians and universities have condemned a proposal to rank every A-level student in the country and award bonus points to those from low-performing schools who achieve top grades. Britain’s biggest exam board, the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA), is floating the idea at the party conferences, arguing that it would help universities identify bright pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Neil Stringer, author of the proposal and a senior research associate at the exam board’s Centre for Education Research and Policy, suggests students should be awarded an exam score based on their three best A-level grades, then put into different performance bands. Those who attend weak schools, but perform highly would be awarded extra points, while those who perform well at top public schools would have points subtracted. All pupils would then be ranked based on their final scores. The proposal, contained in a discussion paper, has elicited strong criticism within education circles and from all sides of the political spectrum. Nick Gibb, the schools minister, said the main way to guarantee universities took a wider range of students was to improve schools and ensure that “more young people achieve good grades in the right subjects – regardless of background”. He said the proposal risked confusing employers, teachers and pupils by giving different values to the same A-levels and warned that it would undermine the integrity of exams. Andy Burnham, Labour’s shadow education secretary, said rather than adopt AQA’s idea, schools should do “a little more to raise aspiration”, and universities that interview candidates should consider the culture of an interview process which “often replicates the atmosphere of private schools.” The Russell Group, which represents Oxford, Cambridge and eight other leading universities, described the exam board’s proposal as “crude and highly unlikely to help widen access”. Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group, said admissions tutors already considered students’ academic achievements within a broader context: “Our universities often use personal statements, references, additional tests and interviews, as well as taking into account any particular barriers – such as spending time in care – that candidates have faced.” She said that AQA’s overly simplistic ranking system was at odds with this holistic approach. “No single measure of educational context could fairly rank all applicants, and we would warn against such crude approaches. Social and economic disadvantage are complex problems that are difficult to measure reliably, especially at the level of individual applicants.” Million+ , which represents universities formed after 1992, said many of its institutions had already developed systems that took into account applicants’ backgrounds, thereby enabling them to identify talented students from less advantaged homes. Professor Malcolm Gillies, vice-chancellor of London Metropolitan University, said the proposals failed because it was the “individual students” who were admitted to university and who gained the grades, not the schools. “If there is any hint that grades are socially moderated in any way their value will be diminished,” he said. “Universities need to see the naked grades.” Toni Pearce, the National Union of Students’ vice-president for further education said that the proposal amounted to “merely a sticking plaster”. “We should not lose sight of the overriding need to improve educational standards across the board,” she said. Stringer told the Independent that he had been influenced by St George’s medical school, which is part of the University of London. It gives a lower offer to students whose performance is at least 60% better than the average for their school. “This strongly suggests that students admitted through the adjusted-criteria scheme learned enough at A-level and are able-enough learners to compete successfully with students who achieved higher A-level grades under more favourable circumstances,” he said. This summer , universities had to set out how they would widen their pool of students if they want to charge more than £6,000 a year from next year. Every institution was forced to adopt an “access agreement” approved by the Office for Fair Access watchdog. The access agreements will be reviewed each year, with institutions that fail to meet their agreed targets on recruitment and retention facing fines or losing the right to charge more than £6,000. A-levels Higher education Schools Andy Burnham Jessica Shepherd Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Exam board suggested awarding bonus points to students from low-performing schools who achieve top grades Politicians and universities have condemned a proposal to rank every A-level student in the country and award bonus points to those from low-performing schools who achieve top grades. Britain’s biggest exam board, the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA), is floating the idea at the party conferences, arguing that it would help universities identify bright pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Neil Stringer, author of the proposal and a senior research associate at the exam board’s Centre for Education Research and Policy, suggests students should be awarded an exam score based on their three best A-level grades, then put into different performance bands. Those who attend weak schools, but perform highly would be awarded extra points, while those who perform well at top public schools would have points subtracted. All pupils would then be ranked based on their final scores. The proposal, contained in a discussion paper, has elicited strong criticism within education circles and from all sides of the political spectrum. Nick Gibb, the schools minister, said the main way to guarantee universities took a wider range of students was to improve schools and ensure that “more young people achieve good grades in the right subjects – regardless of background”. He said the proposal risked confusing employers, teachers and pupils by giving different values to the same A-levels and warned that it would undermine the integrity of exams. Andy Burnham, Labour’s shadow education secretary, said rather than adopt AQA’s idea, schools should do “a little more to raise aspiration”, and universities that interview candidates should consider the culture of an interview process which “often replicates the atmosphere of private schools.” The Russell Group, which represents Oxford, Cambridge and eight other leading universities, described the exam board’s proposal as “crude and highly unlikely to help widen access”. Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group, said admissions tutors already considered students’ academic achievements within a broader context: “Our universities often use personal statements, references, additional tests and interviews, as well as taking into account any particular barriers – such as spending time in care – that candidates have faced.” She said that AQA’s overly simplistic ranking system was at odds with this holistic approach. “No single measure of educational context could fairly rank all applicants, and we would warn against such crude approaches. Social and economic disadvantage are complex problems that are difficult to measure reliably, especially at the level of individual applicants.” Million+ , which represents universities formed after 1992, said many of its institutions had already developed systems that took into account applicants’ backgrounds, thereby enabling them to identify talented students from less advantaged homes. Professor Malcolm Gillies, vice-chancellor of London Metropolitan University, said the proposals failed because it was the “individual students” who were admitted to university and who gained the grades, not the schools. “If there is any hint that grades are socially moderated in any way their value will be diminished,” he said. “Universities need to see the naked grades.” Toni Pearce, the National Union of Students’ vice-president for further education said that the proposal amounted to “merely a sticking plaster”. “We should not lose sight of the overriding need to improve educational standards across the board,” she said. Stringer told the Independent that he had been influenced by St George’s medical school, which is part of the University of London. It gives a lower offer to students whose performance is at least 60% better than the average for their school. “This strongly suggests that students admitted through the adjusted-criteria scheme learned enough at A-level and are able-enough learners to compete successfully with students who achieved higher A-level grades under more favourable circumstances,” he said. This summer , universities had to set out how they would widen their pool of students if they want to charge more than £6,000 a year from next year. Every institution was forced to adopt an “access agreement” approved by the Office for Fair Access watchdog. The access agreements will be reviewed each year, with institutions that fail to meet their agreed targets on recruitment and retention facing fines or losing the right to charge more than £6,000. A-levels Higher education Schools Andy Burnham Jessica Shepherd Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Bernard Hogan-Howe keen to fast-track ‘lateral’ entry in bid to widen diversity of police The new commissioner of the Metropolitan police wants to increase diversity in the force by bringing in senior recruits from outside the service. Bernard Hogan-Howe, who officially took control of the Met this week, believes the police must be more representative of the population – and one way to fast-track that, particularly in more senior ranks, was to look outside the police for talent. “I wouldn’t take every superintendent from outside next year, but I might take 20% if they have got the right skills and we gave them the right training,” he said. “That training is not available yet, so it needs some planning for but I am open-minded.” The commissioner, who said he knew that he could “radically cut crime”, said that in other professions there were higher proportions of individuals from ethnic minorities in senior positions and the police service had to improve its diversity. Currently the only way to join the police service is as a constable, although talented individuals and those with degrees are often promoted quickly through the ranks. Allowing the service to bring people from outside policing into senior ranks – so-called “lateral” entry – is opposed by the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association. But the policy has been cited by police minister, Nick Herbert, as a way to increase diversity quickly within the service. Nationally about 220 senior officers make up the leaders of the 43 forces in England and Wales. Only 38 are women and three are from ethnic minorities. The proportion of black and ethnic minority officers across the Met stands at about 10%. Hogan-Howe said that among police staff and community support officers, the proportion of people from ethnic minorities was much greater – about one in three. “We need to be more representative of the people of London,” he said. “There is clearly a lot more to do. Lateral entry is something we need to move on to and encourage. “We either wait 20 years for something to grow from within the organisation or we take an opportunity to get a pool of talent who will encourage us to improve, to get new skills and new ideas that will benefit us in the long run.” He acknowledged that his strategy of “total policing” would focus in part on tapping into the intelligence held in local communities about those individuals who were, for example, carrying knives. That was made easier if communities saw in police officers people from the same background as themselves. The issue is one David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, has raised with the mayor of London and the home secretary as vital to tackle if the Met is to continue policing by consent in the capital. Police Bernard Hogan-Howe Sandra Laville guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Bernard Hogan-Howe keen to fast-track ‘lateral’ entry in bid to widen diversity of police The new commissioner of the Metropolitan police wants to increase diversity in the force by bringing in senior recruits from outside the service. Bernard Hogan-Howe, who officially took control of the Met this week, believes the police must be more representative of the population – and one way to fast-track that, particularly in more senior ranks, was to look outside the police for talent. “I wouldn’t take every superintendent from outside next year, but I might take 20% if they have got the right skills and we gave them the right training,” he said. “That training is not available yet, so it needs some planning for but I am open-minded.” The commissioner, who said he knew that he could “radically cut crime”, said that in other professions there were higher proportions of individuals from ethnic minorities in senior positions and the police service had to improve its diversity. Currently the only way to join the police service is as a constable, although talented individuals and those with degrees are often promoted quickly through the ranks. Allowing the service to bring people from outside policing into senior ranks – so-called “lateral” entry – is opposed by the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association. But the policy has been cited by police minister, Nick Herbert, as a way to increase diversity quickly within the service. Nationally about 220 senior officers make up the leaders of the 43 forces in England and Wales. Only 38 are women and three are from ethnic minorities. The proportion of black and ethnic minority officers across the Met stands at about 10%. Hogan-Howe said that among police staff and community support officers, the proportion of people from ethnic minorities was much greater – about one in three. “We need to be more representative of the people of London,” he said. “There is clearly a lot more to do. Lateral entry is something we need to move on to and encourage. “We either wait 20 years for something to grow from within the organisation or we take an opportunity to get a pool of talent who will encourage us to improve, to get new skills and new ideas that will benefit us in the long run.” He acknowledged that his strategy of “total policing” would focus in part on tapping into the intelligence held in local communities about those individuals who were, for example, carrying knives. That was made easier if communities saw in police officers people from the same background as themselves. The issue is one David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, has raised with the mayor of London and the home secretary as vital to tackle if the Met is to continue policing by consent in the capital. Police Bernard Hogan-Howe Sandra Laville guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media YouTube version Impending economic Armageddon is apparently a great time to make money. This clip from the BBC will likely leave you as gobsmacked as it did me. via the International Business Times : Stock market trader Alessio Rastani commented on the current economic crisis to the BBC on Monday, saying, “Governments don’t rule the world” but rather Goldman Sachs does and he “dreams of another recession.” “This is not a time right now for wishful thinking that governments are going to sort things out,” Rastani told the BBC. “The governments don’t rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world.” In a candid interview about the Eurozone rescue plan, Rastani said the market is ruled by fear and cannot be saved by the rescue plan. “They know the stock market is toast,” he said. “They know the stock market is finished.” Rastani said most investors are moving their money to places it would be more safe, like U.S. treasuries and the dollar, as they simply do not care about the state of the economy but rather about their own pockets. “Personally it doesn’t matter,” he said. “See I’m a trader. I don’t really care about that kind of stuff. If I see an opportunity to make money, I go with that.” Rastani continued on to say that most other traders, like him, are not interested in the climate of the economy but only care about making money. “For most traders…we don’t really care that much about how they’re going to fix the economy, how they’re going to fix the whole situation,” Rastani said. “Our job is to make money from it.” Finding optimism in a grim situation, Rastani said he’s been “dreaming” of this moment for years. “I go to bed every night, I dream of another recession,” he said. UPDATE: Forbes wanted to know if this was a joke or whether Rastani was serious. Yesterday a purported independent trader going by the name Alessio Rastani appeared on BBC and said some delicious things, namely that he’s been dreaming about a recession and that Goldman Sachs rules the world. Gawker promptly called him a “sociopath.” My colleague at Forbes said he might be a psychopath. Some people commenting on his Facebook page called him a “muppet,” a “nasty little self-publicist” and a “totally honest bastard who wants to rise to the top of [on] the rest of the world’s misery.” Another suggested that he die. So they proceeded to interview him. On this matter he said: FORBES: What do you think of the attention you’ve received since going on TV? AR: I think it’s overblown. I have no idea why I’m getting this attention. I don’t think it was news. For someone to say what I said, I thought everybody already knew this kind of stuff. The big players of funds rule the world, I don’t think that was news. And what I said about making money from a crash, obviously not everybody knows about that, you can make money from a downward market. A lot of people just got the wrong end of the foot, misunderstood what I was saying. They thought I was joyful or licking my lips about the idea of making money from people’s miseries. That’s probably the way it looked on the video. But if they watch the whole video, what I was really trying to say is people need to educate themselves about how to do that… what I was trying to say was, look, everyone should basically prepare. I was trying to be the good guy. If this market’s going to crash, then you’ve got to prepare yourself. You’ve got to basically learn how to make money from this. Otherwise you’ll be like I did 10 years ago … I made some huge mistakes 10 years ago, during the dotcom crash. I realized it was a falling knife. I was trying to say look guys, it’s not just for traders, it’s for everyone. They should ask me how to do it, I will help you. UPDATE 2: The Yes Men deny any involvement , issuing this statement: The Yes Men wish to commend Mr. “Alessio Rastani” for his masterful performance as “trader” on BBC World yesterday. Mr. Rastani’s real name is Granwyth Hulatberi; he once appeared on CNBC MarketWrap as a “representative” of the WTO. Well done, Granwyth! You’re getting better and better. Just kidding. We’ve never heard of Rastani. Despite widespread speculation, he isn’t a Yes Man. He’s a real trader who is, for one reason or another, being more honest than usual. Who in big banking doesn’t bet against the interests of the poor and find themselves massively recompensed—if not by the market, then by humongous taxpayer bailouts? Rastani’s approach has been completely mainstream for several years now; we must thank him for putting a human face on it yesterday.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media At President Obama’s town hall in Mountain View today, Doug Edwards , former Consumer Marketing Head for Google, stood and asked the President to raise his taxes to preserve Pell Grants, education funding and disaster relief, among other things. This was, of course, a riff on Warren Buffett’s column a couple of weeks ago where he called on Congress to make his tax rate equitable with that of his secretary, who actually pays more in taxes than Buffett does. The near-instantaneous reaction on Twitter and elsewhere has been fascinating. Mark Knoller tweeted this : The US Govt accepts contributions. Online at pay.gov or by mail: Bureau of Public Debt, Dept G, P.O Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188. The right-wingers are nearly apoplectic, with Michelle Malkin ready to vomit while they furiously spread speculation that the guy was a plant. Because surely an ex-Googler who made a fortune via stock options and the like couldn’t possibly be sincere about wanting to pay more in taxes to make sure kids get decent educations and things? So the counter from the right is either, “Sure, go ahead and pay whatever you want, here’s the address to send it to!” or “You lie!” Why is it so difficult to believe that some wealthy people also have a sense of social responsibility? Meanwhile, just for perspective, the Koch brothers have slid up the Forbes “Richest” List to number four from number 44, nipping at the heels of Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Larry Ellison. How’s that for “failed policy,” tea party? What should make us all sick about their explosive gain in net worth is that it was largely the result of speculative activity in markets they game , especially energy markets. Update : Oh, the assumptions they make. Check out these tweets from Brendan Buck (John Boehner’s spokesman) and Brad Dayspring (Eric Cantor’s spokesman), and their stupid assumptions. [h/t ThinkProgress ] enlarge enlarge
Continue reading …Comedy writer and producer also created It Ain’t Half Hot Mum and Hi-de-Hi! with Jimmy Perry David Croft, the TV comedy writer and producer responsible for BBC sitcoms including Dad’s Army, It Ain’t Half Hot Mum, Hi-de-Hi, ‘Allo ‘Allo and Are You Being Served?, has died aged 89. Croft died “peacefully in his sleep” at home in Portugal on Tuesday, his family announced on his website. “He was a truly great man, who will be missed by all who had the great fortune of knowing and loving him,” they said in a statement. “We know that he would have been proud that you had all been watching.” Croft’s long-running partnership with Jimmy Perry spawned Dad’s Army, arguably the most successful British sitcom of all time. Originally aired between 1968 and 1977, it remains one of BBC2′s most popular shows even today. The duo also wrote It Ain’t Half Hot Mum – which they considered the funniest of all their collaborations – Hi-de-Hi! and You Rang M’Lord. Croft also wrote Are You Being Served? and ‘Allo ‘Allo with Jeremy Lloyd, and later teamed up with Richard Spendlove to write Oh Doctor Beeching! Croft, who graduated from Sandhurst, rose through the army ranks to major, and served in North Africa, India and Singapore. His experiences in the armed forces provided much of the material for Dad’s Army and It Ain’t Half Hot Mum. •
Continue reading …