Home » Archives by category » News (Page 4619)
Reason.tv: Remy-Do the TSA Pokey Pokey

The Transportation Security Administration – with a little help from Reason.tv and international web sensation Remy – have produced an instructional video outlining proper airport screening measures. “Do the TSA Pokey Pokey” is the second of a series of collaborations between Remy and Reason.tv. Music written and performed by Remy. Video produced by Meredith Bragg. Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : Big Government Discovery Date : 19/05/2011 20:32 Number of articles : 4

Continue reading …
Superinjunctions should be for exceptional cases only, judge to say

Lord Neuberger’s review expected to warn spate of restrictive privacy orders pose grave threat to tradition of open justice Superinjunctions should only be granted in exceptional circumstances because of the threat they pose to open justice, a report by one of Britain’s most senior judges is expected to warn on Friday. Pre-notification ought to be given to third parties, such as the media, of court hearings where celebrities or others are applying for restrictive orders protecting their anonymity, the study headed by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, is also expected to recommend. The proposals arrive as one of the most controversial privacy injunctions – which prevented coverage of Sir Fred Goodwin’s private life – was unexpectedly part-lifted . The decision followed a question in the House of Lords by the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Stoneham of Droxford, who said: “Every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of Royal Bank of Scotland, so how can it be right for a superinjunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague?” Whether Neuberger’s report will add to the argument that the government needs to pass a privacy law is not clear. The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has ruled it out following a meeting with the justice secretary, Ken Clarke. Hunt said: “I don’t believe a privacy law is the way forward. We’re not minded to have a new privacy law but we’re not ruling out the need for legislative changes.” His remarks appeared in contrast to Clarke’s comments in the Commons on Tuesday when he implied that a privacy law might be the best way forward. The long-awaited survey of superinjunctions and privacy orders, which runs to around 100 pages, will provide the government with clearer evidence about the need for a privacy law. Established last year in the wake of the Trafigura affair and the row over the England footballer John Terry’s private life, the Neuberger committee of experts was asked to examine “the use of injunctions which bind the press and so-called ‘superinjunctions’”. There will be no proposals for changing the law, but calls for procedural changes in how courts process applications. The report is believed to suggest that a standard form of privacy injunction order should be drafted, providing a more rigorous and standardised approach to the process of granting gagging orders. There has already been a move away from superinjunctions – which prohibit even mention of the injunction’s existence – towards slightly less secretive orders that protect anonymity. The committee – which includes leading media lawyers, solicitors specialising in privacy issues and judges – is understood to welcome the fact that fewer superinjunctions have been granted in recent months. One of the committee members is the Guardian’s director of legal affairs, Gill Phillips. One of the most far-reaching proposals is likely to be the idea that pre-notification of application hearings will be given to third parties, including media organisations. That would allow news organisations to be represented in court and make submissions or objections to the judge considering the application. Those proceedings would not, for the most part, be reportable but it is hoped they could lift some of the suspicions of the judicial process that have arisen. Judges have pointed out that many applications involve complaints of blackmail and each case needs to looked at individually. The risk is that pre-notification will lead to details leaking out and being used before an injunction has been obtained. Larger hearings are also likely to mean increased costs, making resort to privacy orders open to even fewer, wealthier litigants. The scale of the issue remains unknown. The committee is known to have called for better information about the number of privacy orders being obtained. The Ministry of Justice has already said that its chief statistician is examining ways in which figures can be compiled about the number of superinjunctions and orders in force. Estimates vary from about 20 to as many as several hundred. Another issue the report may address is the question of how far parliamentary privilege protects the media in reporting speeches by MPs or peers that may be in contempt of court orders. Stoneham’s question on Thursday morning, widely reported by the media, led to the change in Goodwin’s order by mid-afternoon. Some legal authorities warn that current legislation leaves newspapers open to prosecution, while Twitter and the outer reaches of cyberspace are in effect immune to judicial disapproval. In advance of the report’s publication, the anti-censorship organisation Article 19 branded superinjunctions as “illegitimate limits to freedom of expression” and said they should be prohibited. It added: “The dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest.” Speaking in the Lords, the former chancellor Lord Irvine denied that judges have been “usurping the role of parliament” by creating novel legal precedents. “Judges are under instruction from parliament in the Human Rights Act to balance the right of respect for a person’s private family life against the right of freedom of expression in article 12,” he said. “The scales are weighted in favour of freedom of expression because the act requires judges to have particular regard to its importance.” (Section four of that article says that in granting injunctions courts ‘must’ have ‘particular regard to … freedom of expression’.) “It is often not just the rights of celebrities which are at stake but also those of innocent third parties, including children,” Irvine added. “There is typically no significant public interest in the disclosure of peccadillos of actors, footballers or reality television contestants, although that helps sell newspapers. A prurient interest does not equate to a legitimate public interest.” Superinjunctions Media law Privacy Privacy & the media Newspapers Newspapers & magazines Sir Fred Goodwin David Neuberger Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
US Predicts 3 to 6 Major Atlantic Hurricanes

Government forecasters announced Thursday they expect three to six major hurricanes from an above average Atlantic storm season. No major hurricane has made a US landfall in five years, but the forecasters warned that streak may not continue. (May 19)

Continue reading …
Behind the Scenes of ‘Top Model’ Cycle 16

“America’s Next Top Model” contestant Kasia Pilewicz dishes on cycle 16′s dramatic finale and the model everybody loved to hate. (May 19)

Continue reading …
Watch: Miami Heat’s Udonis Haslem Dunks Twice on the Bulls

NewsFeed has been watching the saga of the Miami Heat since LeBron James so publicly announced that he, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh would be joining forces to form a superteam. We just didn’t believe it would be a superteam. But they’re in the NBA Eastern Conference Finals, folks, and they’re silencing people who didn’t

Continue reading …

So how does Kate Middleton feel about the amount of attention sister Pippa got at the royal wedding? She was probably surprised by it, author Andrew Morton tells PopEater . “Just as William and Harry are very competitive, Catherine and Pippa are very competitive,” he says. Even so, “the day was…

Continue reading …
So This Happened of the Day: Illinois Senate Minority Leader…

So This Happened of the Day: Illinois Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) takes to the Statehouse floor to read financial advice she received from Raekwon of the Wu-Tang Clan. Read that sentence as many times as you like, it’s still going to say the same thing. [ hypervocal .] Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : The Daily What Discovery Date : 19/05/2011 00:46 Number of articles : 5

Continue reading …
The rise of Glencore, the biggest company you’ve never heard of

Special report: £37bn flotation to make commodities company – and the ‘extremely private’ people behind it – very public A few days after it was announced that the global commodities trader Glencore was to mount the biggest stock exchange float in British history, every major news organisation in the UK received a terse letter from a London law firm. The letter was from Schillings, which is no ordinary corporate law firm: its lawyers describe themselves as reputation management experts, people who help clients “manage what is published and broadcast about them”. They are particularly proud of their own reputation as the country’s leading superinjunction specialists . Glencore executives, the letter said, “are extremely private individuals”, who expected scrutiny of their business activities, but not their personal lives. A warning followed about the “security risk” that could be posed by any reports about their homes or private lives. Not all Glencore’s board members are extremely private. A few days after Schillings’ letter was dispatched, the group’s new chairman, Simon Murray, gave one of his frequent media interviews, in which he offered his personal views on a number of matters , including asylum seekers – “people who claim to be running away from some place in Africa because they’re being beaten up or something” – and his reluctance to employ young women, “because I know they’re going to get pregnant and they’re going to go off for nine months”. The executive whom Schillings had in mind when writing its letter was Glencore’s chief executive, Ivan Glasenberg, a man so secretive that the Financial Times has described him as “one of the great enigmas of the corporate world”. In commodities, Glasenberg’s name enjoys instant recognition. This is unsurprising, given his company’s role in supplying the basic materials that heat, feed, move and house the world. Oil, gas, coal, aluminium, bauxite, nickel, iron ore, zinc, copper, grain, rice, sugar : Glencore and its subsidiaries have a hand not just in buying and selling all of these, but in producing, extracting and transporting them. Glencore’s market share is so large that it recorded revenues of $145bn (£89bn) last year and the flotation value is £37bn. Glasenberg, owning around 16%, will instantly become one of the world’s richest men. The shares started so-called “conditional dealings” on Thursday – proper trading does not start until next week – and had a far from sparkling start, moving only sideways even though they were priced keenly in an effort to get a strong start. Because the company will leap straight into the FTSE 100 index, those investments that track the UK’s biggest quoted companies will be obliged to buy its stock, with the result that the company’s fortunes will have a bearing on the pension funds of millions of people. But so jealously has Glasenberg guarded his privacy that his name means nothing to the man on the street. For years he has avoided speeches and, until recently, had given only one interview – to his old university magazine. If you live outside the world of commodities trading or corporate finance, Ivan Glasenberg is probably the Most Important Businessman You Have Never Heard Of. He was born in January 1957 in South Africa, one of four children of Samuel Glasenberg, a luggage manufacturer and importer born in Lithuania, and his wife, Blanche, a South African. The family home was in Illovo, a comfortable, tree-lined northern suburb of Johannesburg. Glasenberg attended a state school in nearby Hyde Park, where one teacher recalls him as an independent thinker “who did not always accept that the teacher was correct”. His parents were keen to see him forge a career in business, and he studied accounting at the University of the Witwatersrand before serving a form of apprenticeship with the Johannesburg auditing firm Nexia Levitt Kirson. Glasenberg was athletic – even today he tries to run or swim every day – and excelled at a particularly unusual sport: race walking. By his early 20s he was the country’s junior champion, and hoped to compete in the Olympics. Realising that, as a South African during apartheid, this could not happen, he considered applying for Israeli citizenship. Today, the fact that he could not compete in the Olympics is said still to rankle with him. Like every other young white South African male, he had to do national service. Friends say he describes the year he spent as an army clerk, many miles from the frontline, as his “brain-dead year”, when he did not once need to think for himself. Tony Leon, the South African ambassador to Argentina, who shared accommodation with him, said: “We weren’t the world’s most conscientious soldiers: getting out of guard duty was the order of the day. None of us took our duties particularly seriously. And if he had any political views, they weren’t apparent.” Another person who knew Glasenberg at this time said: “I don’t know his views but I would guess he was anti-apartheid. He left South Africa as soon as he could, which is congruent with many Jewish South Africans of that time.” Glasenberg travelled to Los Angeles to study for a master’s in business administration at the University of Southern California’s business school. Years later he told its magazine that it had been “an enormous cultural shock” to leave South Africa. “I stopped focusing on people being different and I started treating everyone the same way.” In the same interview he explained that he had become intrigued by commodities trading at Witwatersrand when he learned about the global trade in one raw material: wax. “I observed a man sourcing candle wax from South America and selling it to Japan. I thought: ‘That’s unbelievable. Talking on the phone in his office, that man made money moving candle wax from one country to another’ It really interested me.” It was the only interview Glasenberg gave before Glencore announced its float. Even that appeared one too many. When it appeared on its website, Glasenberg asked his alma mater to take it down. Today, members of faculty refuse to talk about him, saying they know he values his privacy, so it would not be in the university’s interest to do so. On graduating in 1983, Glasenberg applied, successfully, for a job in New York, working for the man who was at that time the biggest commodities trader in the world: Marc Rich. Glasenberg never did get to work in New York. Just as he was about to join the company, Rich realised that he was going to have his collar felt by the US federal authorities, and fled to Switzerland, never to return. He was subsequently charged with racketeering, evading millions of dollars in taxes and trading with the enemy: the Ayatollahs’ Iran. Rich was America’s most-wanted white-collar criminal, and his picture adorned the FBI’s list of top-10 fugitives alongside that of Osama bin Laden. He stayed on the list until Bill Clinton’s controversial decision to pardon him during the final hours of his presidency in 2001. However, when Rich went on the run, Glasenberg was told there was still a job for him at Marc Rich & Co: back in Johannesburg. At that time, South Africa was at the heart of what Rich would later tell his biographer, Daniel Ammann, was the “most important and most profitable” part of his business. He made an estimated $2bn supplying oil to the apartheid regime. Glasenberg, who began work as a junior member of staff in the coal division, was aware of the oil trading but believed there was nothing wrong with it and had no idea whether or not any embargo was being broken. In the event, by the time the UN adopted an international oil embargo on South Africa at the end of 1987, Glasenberg had moved on, working for Rich first in Sydney and then Beijing, selling coal across the far east. In 1991 he was brought to head office in Switzerland as head of the coal division. He had caught Rich’s attention. Rich told the Guardian he believes Glasenberg to be a brilliant commodities trader. “I liked him right away. He is an excellent analyst, very intelligent and hard-working. Without a doubt he is the strong man at Glencore.” Over the next couple of years, Glasenberg became a trusted member of the inner circle that was known, perhaps inevitably, as the Rich Boys . They had a reputation for being pragmatic, aggressive in their trading and deal-making, and very secretive. They were by no means reclusive – a large network of influential contacts was essential – but they were said to have no wish to draw attention to the deals they struck. “They have profited from being extremely secretive’” says Ammann. “The sort of people they do business with do not want their deals in the spotlight.” As well as trading with South Africa and Iran, Rich was dealing with Castro’s Cuba and giving Mossad an occasional helping hand. At the end of 1993 he lost control of the company when a disastrous attempt to corner the world zinc market led to a number of the Rich Boys insisting he give up his majority stake. After a management buyout, Marc Rich & Co was renamed Glencore. Glasenberg was appointed chief executive in 2002, and until now the company has been run as a private partnership. Today, he and his colleagues are eager to play down the Rich connection. Glencore’s website says the company was founded in 1974, but there is no mention of the founder’s name. While Glasenberg is already a wealthy man, his lifestyle is by no means opulent. He is said to have just one home, a discreet modern villa in a pretty village near Zurich, not far from the Lindt chocolate factory. He appears to be motivated more by a determination to succeed – to be the best commodities trader, running the best business – than to be even more wealthy. Indeed, one person who knows him well say he is driven by anxiety that he may not succeed; that fear of failure is “the biggest fear of every minute” of his life. Taking Glencore to the next level , however, giving it the chance of even greater success through a series of acquisitions, requires the $11bn of funds that will be raised through the flotation. And that will come at a high cost: his privacy. Glasenberg can expect far greater public scrutiny, and so can Glencore. This will not be easy. Secrecy, says Ammann, “is in Glencore’s DNA”. It is also highly valued by its chief executive. Glasenberg prizes the anonymity that he and his wife and two children enjoy – and the fact that until now many of his old school friends in Johannesburg had no idea how much he earns. Despite Schillings’ letter, he knows this is about to change. Glasenberg, says one person who knows how much he anguished over the decision to take Glencore public, is well aware that he “has crossed the Rubicon”. Glencore Stock markets IPOs Commodities Helen Pidd Dan Glaister David Smith Ian Cobain guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Ken Clarke on Question Time – live coverage

Follow live updates as the show comes from Wormwood Scrubs, with the under-fire justice secretary on the panel 11.06pm: A prisoner criticises the lack of rehabilitation and support on offer for people leaving prison under the last Labour government. Straw make a gaffe by getting the name of the prison wrong, confusing Wormwood scrubs with Wandsworth, until David Dimbleby correct him. 11.02pm: Straw says prison does work and accuses Clarke of being motivated by cost cutting. “He [Clarke] says this is designed to help victims and that is frankly not true.” 11.00pm: One former probation officer offered his support to Clarke. He described Ed Miliband’s comments in the Commons yesterday as “some of the worst instincts of New Labour in terms of a personal attack.” “I think Ken Clarke is going in the right direction and should be supported,” the audience member added. 10.58pm: A member of the audience asks the panel whether they agree with former Tory home secretary Michael Howard’s famous comment that prison works. Chakrabarti, unsurprisingly, says no. 10.56pm: Clarke says a reduced sentence would apply if people pleaded guilty when first charged. 10.52pm: Melanie Phillips criticised Clarke’s injudicious use of language: Through his own provocative behaviour he deserves anything he gets. She also says she thinks the main purpose of the government’s proposal to reduce sentences for those who plead guilty early is to save money, a view shared by a prisoner officer in the audience. 10.49pm: Clarke says he would quite like to see the 12-month rape sentences Victoria Derbyshire referenced on her programme, contending that most sentences for the crime are much longer. 10.47pm: Clarke added that he spent yesterday touring the TV studios because it was “let’s face it, a media brouhaha”. He added: “I’m not going to deny the reaction made it quite obvious I should not have phrased it the way I did.” Clarke said his sentencing proposals, which are understood to have been delayed until next month, would apply to “every crime”. Asked what he meant by an early guilty plea, Clarke said he was referring to offenders who admitted their guilt at the first possible opportunity to enter a plea after being charged. 10.45pm: Clarke now responds to the question: I obviously upset a lot of people by what I said and I’m sorry if I did, by the way I put it. All rape is serious. It’s one of the gravest crimes. My choice of words was wrong. It’s because I got bogged down in a silly exchange. As a politician I made a mistake by allowing myself to get drawn into a great long argument about exactly what the gradations of rape were. I phased it very, very badly because I upset a lot of people who want to give more priority to rape. Referring to yesterday’s row, Clarke said: “I was trying to point out that rapists get much longer than she was saying. The average is eight years. My reform proposals don’t affect the sentencing framework for rape or any other crime.” 10.43pm: Former home secretary Jack Straw said he would have been forced out of his job had he made similar comments while in government: If this had happened to me, the fury, not least from the Conservative benches, would have been such that I would have been moved on to a different job. If you get into that situation you need to deal with that very quickly. I would have apologised. If you’re in politics at the high level, there are going to be days when the words don’t come out properly. Asked if Labour leader Ed Miliband was right to call for Clarke to be sacked, Straw said: “My leader is always right.” 10.37pm: The first question to the panel is “was the justice secretary clumsy, wrong or misconstrued” with regards to his comments on rape. Chakrabarti offers her qualified support to Clarke: “All rapes are horrific but some are particularly aggravated.” She said some rapes are particularly aggravated by the use of weapons or multiple assailants and that should be reflected in sentencing. 10.35pm: PA has more details on the eight prisoners who participated in tonight’s show. These included six prisoners convicted of drugs offences, one serving time for theft and another who was jailed for a driving offence. None of the prisoners, who sat in a group in the audience surrounded by guards, were serving sentences for violent offences. 10.32pm: Before Question Time starts you may want to read Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins’ take on the row, which he likens to trial by media . It is the oldest trick in the book. You snatch a politician’s mildly controversial remark. You eradicate context and qualification and invite rent-a-quote to be subject of the verb “to slam” or object of the verb “to infuriate”. You then get the leader of the opposition to demand a sacking, and stake out the victim’s house to see how he takes it. Ken Clarke’s spot of bother over rape sentencing this week has been a classic. His suggestion that not all crimes within a category are necessarily identical is almost trivially obvious. But who cares when the political heat is on and the mob is running hotfoot to the guillotine? It does not want obvious, it wants blood. 10.23pm: PA reports Clarke did not receive a hostile reception and “even appeared relaxed as he laughed and joked with host David Dimbleby in the run-up to the show, asking him and the audience if he looked good and if his tie was straight.” 10.06pm: Some of Clarke’s comments on the rape row have emerged in advance of the broadcast. He told the Question Time audience that he made a mistake by getting “bogged down” in an argument about the different types of rape, admitting that his comments about the differences between “serious, proper rapes” and others had “obviously upset a lot of people”. But he stopped short of offering a full apology and insisted the government was still considering plans to halve sentences for all criminals who admit their guilt at their first chance to enter a plea after being charged. Just a reminder that the Guardian’s leader column on Clarke’s comments said Cameron “should back him not sack him”: He was right that more rape suspects – and suspects of all kinds – should be encouraged to plead guilty, in part because the protection of rape victims from the second ordeal of a court hearing with its sometimes traumatic cross-examination is important. And while rape is indeed rape, and Mr Clarke was silly to dispute it yesterday, it is also right that there is a scale of serious sentences, with aggravating and mitigating factors, which are properly applied to different cases, in rape as in other crimes. In that sense, some rapes are indeed particularly serious. 9.59pm: Security on Question Time will be tighter than ever for tonight’s edition, which is being broadcast from Wormwood Scrubs . For the first time, prisoners will join the audience to quiz the panel along with members of the public. Ten inmates have been chosen and vetted to ask questions of the panel , which also includes former home secretary Jack Straw, Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips and Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty. A spokeswoman for Wormwood Scrubs said there was no additional security due to Clarke’s comments. But tonight’s episode is being filmed slightly earlier than usual to give extra time to the BBC to edit the show should there be any problems. 9.31pm: Welcome to this special live blog on BBC1′s Question Time where under-fire justice secretary Ken Clarke is expected to further clarify his stance on sentencing for rape . Before tonight’s programme, here’s a recap of the row, which sparked calls for Clarke to resign. •In a live radio interview on Wednesday, Clarke gave the impression there were “serious rapes and other categories of rape”. Politicians and commentators from the left and right condemned the government for apparently failing to understand the gravity of the crime. •Clarke, who had initially refused to apologise in a round of TV interviews, wrote to a victim of attempted rape who had broken down in tears when she confronted him on the Radio 5 Live show over his “disastrous” plan. •The row came after both Clarke and his minister, Crispin Blunt, gave the impression in the Commons on Tuesday that a proposal to introduce a maximum 50% sentence discount in return for an early guilty plea to all crimes, including rape, had been given the go-ahead. • Labour leader Ed Milliband demanded that David Cameron sack Clarke over the row during prime minister’s question time on Wednesday. •But following the row over his remarks about rape, the justice secretary said he would look at the proposal again . Kenneth Clarke Jack Straw Prisons and probation Rape David Batty guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
DA: Strauss-Kahn Charges ‘Extremely Serious’

International Monetary Fund leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn was formally indicted Thursday on charges that he sexually abused a maid at a Manhattan hotel. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. called the charges ‘extremely serious.’ (May 19)

Continue reading …