Carbon reduction commitment (CRC) scheme has ‘perverse effect’ of threatening zero-carbon energy research World-class research into future sources of green energy is under threat in Britain from an environmental tax designed to boost energy efficiency and drive down carbon emissions, scientists claim. Some facilities must find hundreds of thousands of pounds to settle their green tax bills, putting jobs and research at risk. The unexpected impact of the government’s carbon reduction commitment (CRC) scheme is so severe that scientists and research funders have lobbied ministers for an exemption to reduce the bills. Among the worst hit is the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire, a flagship facility for research into almost limitless carbon-free energy. The lab faces an estimated £400,000 payment next year, raising the spectre of job losses and operational cutbacks. “Considering our research is aimed at producing zero-carbon energy, it seems ironic and perverse to clobber us with an extra bill,” a senior scientist at the laboratory told the Guardian. “We have to use electricity to run the machine and there is no way of getting around that.” The laboratory operates the Joint European Torus (JET), the largest fusion reactor in Europe. The facility has led the way in scientific research on fusion energy, and is a forerunner for the first demonstration plant, ITER, to be built in France over the next decade. Under the CRC, the Culham lab faces a significant bill because while energy savings can be made in other areas of the site, the machine draws an inevitably large electricity bill when it is running. Concerns over the tax have led the Prospect union to lobby government for an exemption on energy use at experimental facilities where the focus of research contributes directly to public good and government policy. “This will have a negative impact on important research into low carbon energy sources and that cannot be the right consequence of a policy the government is pursuing to promote a low carbon economy,” said Sue Ferns, head of research at Prospect. “There is a potential for the scheme to impact on employment and it adds to pressures to run the equipment less. Even if it doesn’t lead to substantial job losses, these are world-class scientists and every job, every piece of research makes a difference. “The UK cannot afford to lose its edge in this area,” she added. Britain’s main funding body for research centres, the Science and Technology Facilities Council, has separately approached government to persuade ministers to rethink how the scheme applies to scientific laboratories. The STFC’s bill will “inevitably” mean less funding for research across its centres, the Guardian has been told. Representations from scientists, the research council and Prospect have so far been dismissed by government, but the chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, passed on researchers’ concerns to Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for an ongoing review of the scheme. Across the UK, laboratories will be required to pay around £1m in annual CRC bills to DECC. Almost all of that will be met by diverting grants given out by other areas of government, such as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, a situation Ferns described as “a nonsensical recycling of funds”. In October’s spending review, the government shelved plans to recycle money raised by the scheme to participants, and stated that it expected to earn £1bn in revenue to support public finances instead. Another Oxfordshire laboratory, the Diamond synchrotron light source, anticipates a £300,000 bill under the CRC. A spokesman said the laboratory hoped to offset some of the cost by investing in more efficient water cooling systems for the machine, better climate control, and motion-sensitive lighting. At the Daresbury laboratory in Cheshire, the CRC bill will exacerbate financial woes that have already forced managers to draft redundancy packages and consider cutting back on equipment. “Science is already struggling here and now we are being charged an additional premium to go about our everyday business while working to address the government’s own stated grand challenges in science for the 21st century. It doesn’t seem a very joined-up approach,” said Lee Jones, an accelerator physicist at the laboratory. The DECC said the CRC scheme aimed to deliver “ambitious” carbon reductions by improving energy efficiency at large energy users. “All parts of the UK economy will need to play a part in using energy more efficiently. The measures encouraged by the CRC can make organisations more competitive via the cost savings on their energy bills. We are currently working on simplifying the CRC scheme to make it more straightforward and reduce burden on participants. Further details of how we plan to do this will be published in the coming months.” Renewable energy Energy Green economy Liberal-Conservative coalition Carbon emissions Energy efficiency Energy industry Energy Energy Ian Sample guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Carbon reduction commitment (CRC) scheme has ‘perverse effect’ of threatening zero-carbon energy research World-class research into future sources of green energy is under threat in Britain from an environmental tax designed to boost energy efficiency and drive down carbon emissions, scientists claim. Some facilities must find hundreds of thousands of pounds to settle their green tax bills, putting jobs and research at risk. The unexpected impact of the government’s carbon reduction commitment (CRC) scheme is so severe that scientists and research funders have lobbied ministers for an exemption to reduce the bills. Among the worst hit is the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire, a flagship facility for research into almost limitless carbon-free energy. The lab faces an estimated £400,000 payment next year, raising the spectre of job losses and operational cutbacks. “Considering our research is aimed at producing zero-carbon energy, it seems ironic and perverse to clobber us with an extra bill,” a senior scientist at the laboratory told the Guardian. “We have to use electricity to run the machine and there is no way of getting around that.” The laboratory operates the Joint European Torus (JET), the largest fusion reactor in Europe. The facility has led the way in scientific research on fusion energy, and is a forerunner for the first demonstration plant, ITER, to be built in France over the next decade. Under the CRC, the Culham lab faces a significant bill because while energy savings can be made in other areas of the site, the machine draws an inevitably large electricity bill when it is running. Concerns over the tax have led the Prospect union to lobby government for an exemption on energy use at experimental facilities where the focus of research contributes directly to public good and government policy. “This will have a negative impact on important research into low carbon energy sources and that cannot be the right consequence of a policy the government is pursuing to promote a low carbon economy,” said Sue Ferns, head of research at Prospect. “There is a potential for the scheme to impact on employment and it adds to pressures to run the equipment less. Even if it doesn’t lead to substantial job losses, these are world-class scientists and every job, every piece of research makes a difference. “The UK cannot afford to lose its edge in this area,” she added. Britain’s main funding body for research centres, the Science and Technology Facilities Council, has separately approached government to persuade ministers to rethink how the scheme applies to scientific laboratories. The STFC’s bill will “inevitably” mean less funding for research across its centres, the Guardian has been told. Representations from scientists, the research council and Prospect have so far been dismissed by government, but the chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, passed on researchers’ concerns to Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for an ongoing review of the scheme. Across the UK, laboratories will be required to pay around £1m in annual CRC bills to DECC. Almost all of that will be met by diverting grants given out by other areas of government, such as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, a situation Ferns described as “a nonsensical recycling of funds”. In October’s spending review, the government shelved plans to recycle money raised by the scheme to participants, and stated that it expected to earn £1bn in revenue to support public finances instead. Another Oxfordshire laboratory, the Diamond synchrotron light source, anticipates a £300,000 bill under the CRC. A spokesman said the laboratory hoped to offset some of the cost by investing in more efficient water cooling systems for the machine, better climate control, and motion-sensitive lighting. At the Daresbury laboratory in Cheshire, the CRC bill will exacerbate financial woes that have already forced managers to draft redundancy packages and consider cutting back on equipment. “Science is already struggling here and now we are being charged an additional premium to go about our everyday business while working to address the government’s own stated grand challenges in science for the 21st century. It doesn’t seem a very joined-up approach,” said Lee Jones, an accelerator physicist at the laboratory. The DECC said the CRC scheme aimed to deliver “ambitious” carbon reductions by improving energy efficiency at large energy users. “All parts of the UK economy will need to play a part in using energy more efficiently. The measures encouraged by the CRC can make organisations more competitive via the cost savings on their energy bills. We are currently working on simplifying the CRC scheme to make it more straightforward and reduce burden on participants. Further details of how we plan to do this will be published in the coming months.” Renewable energy Energy Green economy Liberal-Conservative coalition Carbon emissions Energy efficiency Energy industry Energy Energy Ian Sample guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Fox’s Bob Beckel tells Stossel that the liberals on Fox can ‘caucus in a phone booth’ as audience boos liberal budgets
May 30, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media This week’s edition of the Stossel show on Fox Business News hosted a mock debate on budgets that cut the deficit for the almost the entire hour. Five sets of budgets put out by five different think tanks were the focus. Two supposed liberals (from the Roosevelt Institute and from Demos ), two conservatives (from American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation), and one bi-partisan (from BiPartisan Policy Center ) (the Center for American Progress would not participate with their new budget because of bias on the show). The Stossel show also included a panel of Bob Beckel, David Asman and “neutral” Fox Business reporter Sandra Smith . They were asked to question each think tank and then vote for one of them, but the audience would have the deciding vote. Bob Beckel is a longtime “liberal’” on Fox News who believes in the flat tax , and first he apologized to Hillary Doe for putting up with the crowd and then said he was the only liberal on Fox, so he’s used to it. After Stossel told him there were others on the network, he said this: Beckel: I want to congratulate you for putting up with this (audience booing), and with all due respect… being the only liberal at Fox, I can get a pretty thick skin. Stossel: Well, you’re not the only liberal at Fox! Beckel: There’s damn few of us, we all of us can caucus in a phone booth, let me put it that way to you. … Alan Colmes is a featured liberal on FNC, but Beckel is right on the overall truth of his claim that the amount of real liberals on Fox can barely fill a phone booth. I wonder how Roger Ailes will take that bit of honesty since it bucks his “fair and balanced” slogan? Hillary Doe of the Roosevelt Institute was a good sport after she was repeatedly booed by the audience for proposing taxes on banks and was against the ‘too big to fail’ mentality. She also said that if their health-care pools didn’t rein in costs after ten years, they would force in a public option — which was also booed heavily by the audience. Can you guess which think tank won the debate? The Heritage Foundation. I know, what a shocker. Asman has ties to the Heritage Foundation and he voted for the BiPartisan Center budget. Sarah Smith, who’s supposed to be an impartial news reporter, voted for the Heritage Foundation because it’s the only plan that balances the budget in ten years. See, she’s non-partisan because details don’t matter. She’s a reporter? Here’s Demos and the BiPartisan Center debate section of Stossel: John Stossel gives the last word on the budget debate and of course he just wants to cut government spending almost entirely because there are too many pages in a budget plan.
Continue reading …
• Click F5 or turn on our auto-refresh tool for updates • Email jacob.steinberg.casual@guardian.co.uk for a chat • Follow Jacob on Twitter, if that’s your thing 9 min: Reading win the first corner of the afternoon, but McAnuff’s delivery from the left is dreadful, cleared by the man at the near post. This is being played at breakneck speed. 8 min: Both Reading wingers are looking to attack their full-backs whenever they get the ball. Now Kebe whips it in from the right but with Long lurking, Monk gets in the way. 7 min: Swansea’s players crowd around Phil Dowd after Andy Griffin steams into the back of Scott Sinclair. Who do they think they are, Barcelona? Pepe Griffin is booked. 6 min: Swansea are now settling, pinging the ball about confidently, using their 4-1-1-2-3-3-2-1-2-1-1-4-1 formation to good effect. 4 min: This is an absolutely brilliant start. Now Swansea, having weathered the storm, pelt forward, Sinclair driving in from the left ominously, forcing Mills into a desperate foul just outside the D. Borini stands over the free-kick and tries to Ronaldo it into the top corner, only to waft it harmlessly over the top. 2 min: This is a fantastic start from Reading, who are playing with a ferocious tempo. A loose ball breaks to Long on the edge of the area. He appears to control it with his hand but play is allowed to continue, and Long knocks it to the right of the area for Kebe, whose ball into the six-yard box is spilled by De Vries. Long tries to hook it home, but can only scuff his shot and eventually Swansea hack it clear. More please! 1 min: And we’re off. Not before both teams indulge themselves in a huddle. Obviously separate huddles, otherwise it would all be very pointless. The huddle should be banned actually. All that machismo actually has the opposite effect and only makes a side look thoroughly insecure. Anyway if they both do huddles, don’t they get cancelled out? Reading get us going, kicking from left to right. It’s rocking inside Wembley. An early scare for Swansea as De Vries dawdles with a backpass and only just gets it clear as Long closes in. The teams are out and lined up in the typical Wembley formation. We’re going through the presentations now. Firm handshakes. Eye contact. Dignity. It can only go downhill from here. John Madejski is dancing. John Madejski is dancing . I’m going to play in the road. It’s not worth it any more. An email from Nu Wembley! “It’s a 4-2-3-1,” confirms Nath Jones. “How can Swansea be the Barcelona of the Championship if we don’t play the same formation? (At Wembley – fifteen mins before kick-off and it’s already better than Old Wembley.)” Sky are now linking the ROYALS to the ROYAL Wedding. Oh Pippa . Sky assure me that Swansea play a 4-2-1-2-1 formation. Which sounds suspiciously like a 4-2-3-1 formation, or even a 4-3-3 or even more outrageously a 4-5-1. Then again, who am I to argue with Peter Beagrie ? Hello and welcome to what we are now obliged to call the richest game in the history of all football. Actually, let’s not call it that at all. When it’s put like that, it’s enough to turn you off the sport for life and we’ve already got Sepp Blatter and friends to do that all on their own. Let’s take our cue from Barcelona’s masterclass on Saturday evening and make this about the glory, not the money. Let’s make this all about earning the right to be spanked by Manchester United and Manchester City next season. Sure, should the camera pan to this afternoon’s winning chairman it will of course show that his eyes have indeed been replaced by pound signs, but that’s not what the fans of Reading and Swansea are here for. For them, not only is it a rare day out at Wembley, it’s the chance to see their relatively humble clubs mixing it with the big boys. Unlike a lot of big occasions at Wembley, the play-off final actually tends to be a terrifically entertaining affair. This has been discussed at length recently, but there hasn’t actually been a truly great FA Cup final in this stadium since, say, Crystal Palace v Manchester United in 1990. The play-offs rarely disappoint however: in 1998, Charlton beat Sunderland on penalties after a barely believable 4-4 draw , in 2000 Ipswich beat Barnsley 4-2 and last season Ian Holloway’s Blackpool beat Cardiff 3-2, all the goals coming in an astonshing first half. So Reading and Swansea have plenty to live up to then. It’s a strange quirk, this, actually: given the prize on offer, it’s surely only logical that play-off finals shouldn’t be this disordered, that they should be as joyless as a Roberto Mancini 9-0-1 formation. Reading do not have fond memories of these matches though – they’ve only been in the final once, in 1995, but despite going 2-0 up inside 12 minutes against Bolton Wanderers, they eventually contrived to cock it up, drawing 2-2 in normal time, before going on to lose 4-3 in extra time . Maybe it’s the FA Cup final approach for them then. Certainly Swansea will find it difficult to break them down, considering Reading did not concede a single goal over two legs in their semi-final against Cardiff. Indeed having drawn 0-0 at home in the first leg, they were firm underdogs going into the second leg but a thoughtful, mature performance ensured they left Wales with a surprisingly serene 3-0 victory. They’ve also won 1-0 at Everton in the FA Cup this season, and were close to taking Manchester City to a replay in the next round. Players like Shane Long and Jobi McAnuff catch the eye, but do not underestimate the experience of Ian Harte and Zurab Khiza … Khizanish … the big Georgian at the back, or the sturdiness of Matthew Mills. Brian McDermott, too, has done a remarkable job since initially taking over as caretaker in January 2010. He’s no Tony Parkes, that’s for sure. McDermott, of course, took over from Brendan Rodgers the former-new-Mourinho, who is now Swansea’s manager. It’s difficult to say precisely how much of an impact Rodgers has had at Swansea seeing as the foundations were already in place when he arrived and the club had been making quiet progress year after year, but only the deliberately obtuse would argue with finishing third and reaching the play-off final in his first full season. Swansea are probably marginal favourites this afternoon, given the wealth of talent at their disposal, with the likes of Scott Sinclair, Angel Rangel and Fabio Borini all destined to succeed at a higher level. Reading (4-4-2): Federici; Griffin, Mills, Khizanishvili, Harte; Kebe, Karacan, Leigertwood, McAnuff; Long, Hunt. Subs: McCarthy, Tabb, Church, Robson-Kanu, Howard, Cummings, Pearce. Swansea (4-2-1-2-1): De Vries; Rangel, Monk, Williams, Tate; Britton, Allen; Dobbie; Dyer, Sinclair; Borini. Subs: Ma-Kalambay, Pratley, Beattie, Serran, Moore, Gower, Richards. Referee: Phil Dowd (Staffordshire) Championship Reading Swansea City Jacob Steinberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Day After Joe Klein Says Obama Closer to Military Than Bush Poll Finds Military Don’t Like Obama
May 30, 2011 No Comment
As NewsBusters reported Sunday, Time magazine's Joe Klein said on this weekend's “The Chris Matthews Show” Barack Obama has a better relationship with the military than George W. Bush did. Almost on cue, Gallup released a poll Monday finding military personnel and veterans give Obama lower marks than the rest of the population: Thirty-seven percent of all active-duty military personnel and veterans surveyed approved of the job Obama is doing during the January 2010 to April 2011 time frame. That compares with 48% of nonveterans interviewed during the same period. Here's what Klein said this weekend: “I'd say the relationship is pretty good, very, better than it was with Bush because the military hated the fact that he wasn't really doing the job in Iraq.” Nice call there, Joe. You do your country – and your magazine! – proud.
Continue reading …In Europe, the politicians seem to pay at least a little attention to the voters. So who knows? Maybe this will work. But there’s so much invested in nuclear energy, I don’t know how they can bring it to a complete halt anytime soon: More than 100,000 demonstrators took to the streets in 20 cities across Germany on Saturday to call for a rapid end to nuclear power, even as a government-sponsored national commission is expected to recommend that Berlin abolish nuclear energy within a decade. The Ethics Commission is set to announce the results of its final report on Germany’s energy future, calling for nuclear power to be phased out by 2021. Chancellor Angela Merkel had tasked the commission with forging a national consensus on how to replace nuclear power with renewable energy in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in Japan last March. The political opposition praised the commission’s recommendation while expressing doubt about how Chancellor Merkel’s center-right coalition would receive the report. “I have doubts whether Merkel can successfully implement this position within her coalition,” said Thomas Oppermann of the center-left Social Democrats’ parliamentary group. In Berlin, at least 20,000 protesters marched from city hall to the headquarters of Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats, where they called for an immediate end to nuclear power. Demonstration organizer Uwe Hiksch said an exit from nuclear power within a decade was not acceptable. The environmental organization Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND) also called for a quicker shutdown of the country’s nuclear plants.
Continue reading …
On the front page of Monday’s Washington Post, political reporters Karen Tumulty and Philip Rucker insisted Iowa is too white and too “far right” to pick the Republican presidential nominee against Obama: When the rest of the country is focusing on the economy, will Republicans in other states take their lead from the outcome of an eccentric process that has been dominated by social conservatives? And as the GOP looks to defeat an African American president who mobilized record numbers of young and minority voters four years ago, how relevant are the preferences of 200,000 or so caucusgoers in a rural state that is overwhelmingly white and significantly older than average? Tumulty and Rucker don’t answer the obvious flaw in this quibble: in which primary state will the liberal media not antagonize the GOP primary electorate as too overwhelmingly white? South Carolina? They can’t argue New Hampshire isn’t overwhelmingly white – but liberals like that state’s distaste for social issues, and the open primary that favors the McCains. Inside the paper, the Post underlined their thesis again, with the pull quote “To win in Iowa, you’ve got to go too far to the right, and it will hurt him in the national election.” The quote came from John Strong, a Romney fan from West Des Moines. Strong said Romney should not prioritize Iowa because of the “far-right influence here.” Tumulty and Rucker underlined that “The overall direction of Republican politics in Iowa has swung rightward on social issues, even since the last presidential election. Conservatives were galvanized in part by a 2009 Iowa Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage. They defeated three justices last year in retention elections.” Did the Iowa GOP “swing right,” or did unelected judges go too far to the left? The Post will never acknowledge “extremism” in the defense of social liberalism – they won’t even call it social liberalism. There’s no reason for voters in the other 49 states to feel Iowa’s anxiety over not “mattering” enough in the process. But the Post enjoyed the trash talk between Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans: Most grating to Iowa Republicans have been the snide comments from their fellow early state, New Hampshire, which has a more conventional primary election. In a recent column for the New Hampshire Union Leader that was reprinted in the Des Moines Register, former New Hampshire GOP chairman Fergus Cullen wrote that important issues don’t get debated in Iowa, because “three quarters of the audience wears tinfoil hats.” The Post underlined that Republicans could change it up in Iowa – if the “right message” (moderation) wins. GOP officials say that some of that potential for overturning the conventional wisdom exists on their side this time, if a candidate has the right message. Republican turnout in last year’s gubernatorial primary was almost 230,000, nearly double the number who participated in the presidential caucuses two years before. The winner was former governor Branstad, the establishment pick and the more moderate choice.
Continue reading …
Hu Chunhua, party chief in Inner Mongolia, orders censorship of information and clampdown on visitors to region A communist official tipped to be a future leader of China is moving to defuse a wave of protests in Inner Mongolia by choking information, tightening campus controls and promising a reform of the mining industry, that is one of the causes of the uprising. A demonstration by ethnic Mongolians on Monday in the regional capital, Hohhot, was the latest test for Hu Chunhua, whose appointment as party chief of the resource-rich region last year was widely seen as a step towards top office in 2020. Censors have blocked information about the biggest surge of unrest the northern region has seen in 20 years, but witnesses and overseas groups say there have been rallies in at least six communities over the past week sparked by the killing of a Mongolian herder who tried to stop a convoy of coal trucks from trespassing on the grasslands. The case has become a symbol of unease about economic development that is marginalising ethnic rights and the steppe environment. Locals told The Guardian the latest protests took place today in Hohhot despite a tightened security presence. “It was about 20 Mongolians in Xinhua Square,” said a blogger, who goes under the name Blue Sky Pigeon. “But I doubt it will last long because the controls are tight.” An employee at a hotel on the square confirmed a demonstration was taking place, but it was unclear how the security forces responded. The local police, government and propaganda offices either refused to comment or let their phones ring unanswered, but the authorities have been working for several days to quash dissent with a mix of restrictions and conciliatory gestures. After a thousand students took to the streets in Xilinhot last Wednesday, paramilitary police are reportedly stationed at the gates of Inner Mongolia University in Hohhot and checking the identities and intentions of everyone going in and out. In other areas, schools associated with both Mongolian and Han ethnic groups have been subject to restrictions. The Youth League Committee of Inner Mongolia University declined to discuss the new security measures, but acknowledged the students’ online bulletin board and chatroom – known as Qizhi – had been shut down for “maintenance” until 10 June. Other reports suggest popular social networking sites such as QQ, Weibo and Tencent have been either blocked or heavily censored. A Chinese language internet search for “Inner Mongolia” and “protest” yielded no mention of the events of the past week. Hotels near universities and schools have been forbidden from accepting foreign guests since last Friday. “The security has become tougher,” said a taxi driver in Xilinhot – the site of an earlier disturbance. Hu – a protege of president Hu Jintao (though no relation) – has tried to pacify the protesters with a promise of justice for the perpetrators of the killing of the herder – known as Mergen – on 11 June, and another death related to a coal mine protest four days later. Recent incidents “have triggered a great deal of public anger,” Hu told teachers and students last week, according to the Inner Mongolian Daily. “We will firmly protect the dignity of law and the rights of the victims and their families.” Local TV stations – which are controlled by the communist party – have shown Hu’s deputy visiting Mergen’s family to present a bundle of money. The chairman of the coal trucking company — Liaoning Chuncheng Industry – has also made a public apology. Police have arrested four people and provide frequent bulletins on the cases via local radio, TV and mobile phone short messages. The official Xinhua News Agency said regional authorities will investigate the mining industry’s impact on the environment and traditional livelihoods with the aim of improving grasslands protection. But many locals are suspicious. Mongolian independence activists said concilliatory words could not disguise the long-term trends of resource exploitation that prompted the deadly clash between truckers and herders. “Mongols have good reasons to doubt the intentions of the government. For the past six decades, the destruction of the grassland ecology, cultural assimilation, political oppression and economic exploitation have characterised the policies of the Chinese government in southern Mongolia,” said a group calling itself the “Co-ordinating Committee for May 29/30 Protest”. If the demonstrations continue, “Little Hu” – as the Inner Mongolian governor is nicknamed – may rely more on coercion and intimidation to impose order on a restless ethnic minority. There are precedents, including the crackdown imposed in Tibet by the current president Hu Jintao in the 1980s. Recent mobile phone messages from the Inner Mongolian authorities have warned that the police are ready to “intensify the crackdown,” according to Reuters. Amnesty International has urged restraint and called on the authorities to “respect freedom of expression and assembly for protesters”. Monday’s relatively small demonstration, however, suggests Hu’s efforts to silence, intimidate and buy-off critics may be working. Mongolia China Protest Jonathan Watts guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• Follow all the latest updates on our live blog • Suspended vice-president threatens to tear Fifa apart Fifa has been rocked further as Sepp Blatter and Jérôme Valcke, its two most senior figures, were accused of a “politically motivated” subversion of the presidential election process by one of the men suspended in the ethics committee inquiry. Jack Warner was the vice-president who had spent almost 30 years on Fifa’s executive committee until his provisional suspension on Sunday. Now he threatens to tear Fifa apart from within, challenging his suspension through the courts. As a first step he has opened a front on Valcke, who is Fifa’s top mandarin as its general secretary. Warner has disclosed an incendiary email in which Valcke discussed the presidential election campaign of the Qatari Fifa executive-committee member Mohamed bin Hammam, who was suspended on Sunday. In the message Valcke appears to accuse Qatar of “buying” the World Cup. “‘For MBH, I never understood why he was running,’” Valcke’s email states. “‘If really he thought he had a chance or just being an extreme way to express how much he does not like anymore JSB [Blatter]. Or he thought you can buy Fifa as they [Qatar] bought the WC.” Valcke has confirmed the email but said it has been quoted selectively. “It was a private email and we will discuss it,” Valcke said on Monday. “He sent me an email asking if I want that [Bin Hammam to run], he said I should ask Bin Hammam to pull out.” Qatar 2022 said it is considering its next steps. Valcke’s comments to Warner about Bin Hammam cast doubt on his own impartiality in the election process. According to Warner’s statement Valcke, who is known to believe that he would be dismissed from Fifa were Bin Hammam to have won Wednesday’s election, added in the email: “I have a bet since day one, he will withdraw but on June 1st after his 10 min speech. “He will get some votes. Less than 60 today after CAF support. It will be the ‘coup de grace’ if you would officially send a message as the Concacaf president by saying Concacaf supports unanimously. So I am not giving you an advice but just my feeling about what I think is the situation.” Warner, the then Concacaf president, refused to offer that support. He claims what followed was evidence of the political “bias” of Fifa’s administration in favour of the incumbent president, since it was Valcke who set the ball rolling on the inquiry that has led to the suspensions of Bin Hammam and Warner. “The complaints made in this matter are politically motivated against Mr Bin Hammam and me and are designed, among other things, to cause serious prejudice and damage to both Mr Bin Hammam and myself at one of the most critical times for the Fifa,” Warner said. Warner’s statement was prepared under legal advice and his case against Fifa will seek to discredit the principal accuser in the ethics committee inquiry. Concacaf’s general secretary, Chuck Blazer, ordered the Collins & Collins report into Warner and Bin Hammam’s conduct, which formed the basis of the ethics committee decision on Sunday. “It is informative for one to look at Mr Blazer’s credibility by referring to the report of the New York district court judge in the matter between Master Card and Visa in the Fifa matter of 7 December 2006,” wrote Warner, before citing the court decision. “Mr Blazer’s testimony was generally without credibility based on his attitude and demeanor on his evasive answers on cross-examination … Thus, for that reason and based on his evasive answers and his attitude and demeanor, Mr Blazer’s testimony as the 14 March 2006 Marketing & TV AG Board meeting is rejected as fabricated.” The final strand of Warner’s attack on the events that led to his suspension on Sunday is against Blatter. Warner accuses Blatter of apportioning Fifa funds for his own political ends in the final weeks before Wednesday’s election. “I also indicated that at the Miami Concacaf congress on 3 May Mr Blatter made a gift of $1m to Concacaf to spend as it deems fit,” Warner said. “This annoyed [Uefa's] president Michel Platini who was present and he approached Valcke complaining that Mr Blatter had no permission from the finance committee to make this gift to which Jérôme [sic] replied that he will find the money for Mr Blatter.” The president of a Concacaf federation, in Zurich for a special caucus of the Caribbean, Central and North American confederation, has confirmed that this award had been made. It was in favour of two Goal projects of the confederation’s choosing. Fifa Football politics Sepp Blatter Jack Warner Mohamed bin Hammam Matt Scott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Less than a month before Korea, years before Vietnam and decades before Iraq, Memorial Day was about remembering those who served and died during the Wars previous, back to the Civil War. The Second World War had only ended less than five years before, the task of rebuilding was still going on. The upheavals and changes were new with words like “Right Of Self-Determination” and “Cold War” recent additions to the lexicon. Just sixty years ago today. Everything was in a state of change, nobody really knew where any of it was headed. The only thing certain were fields of white crosses, evidence that sacrifice was the constant – no matter how much things changed, or how much they remained the same.
Continue reading …