• MPs to examine increased discounts for early guilty pleas • Cameron backs justice secretary after rape comments furore The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has postponed plans to announce his sentencing reforms, including the controversial move to increase discounts for early guilty pleas, until after the Whitsun break. Clarke had hoped to announce the sentencing package designed to stabilise the record prison population next Tuesday, but that has been delayed for a few weeks while ministers look again at the impact of the controversial proposal. Downing Street expressed its full confidence in Clarke, who promised on Thursday to “choose my words more carefully in the future”. But David Cameron was privately furious with Clarke for what No 10 regarded as his “tin ear” when he appeared to suggest on Wednesday that some rape cases are more serious than others. Clarke once again apologised on Thursday night for his choice of words. In an appearance on BBC1′s Question Time he said: “I am sorry” for the “way that I put it”. Clarke added: “I am not going to deny that the reaction made it quite obvious that I
Continue reading …CBS's Elaine Quijano filed a slanted report on Wednesday's Evening News about the new report on the Catholic priest child sex abuse scandal. All but one of the sound bites which Quijano played during the segment either leaned negative against the Catholic Church or completely slammed the religious body. Anchor Katie Couric heralded the negative reaction about the report from some quarters in her teaser for Quijano's report at the very beginning of the half-hour program: “Tonight, a report commissioned by the Catholic Church claims to know why the child sex abuse scandal happened, but victims' groups aren't buying it .” A minute later, the correspondent picked up where Couric left off in her introduction: ” For survivors of clergy sexual abuse, today marks another deep disappointment .” After playing a clip from victim David Lorenz, who unsurprisingly attacked the Catholic bishops in the U.S., Quijano explained that the “new report, five years in the making, was commissioned by…[the] bishops, and conducted by researchers from New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice. It partially blames the clergy sex abuse crisis on the sexual revolution that began 50 years ago.” She then played a sound bite from Dr. Karen Terry, the chief investigator for the report, who was the only person featured in the report who didn't lean negative against the Church. Later, the CBS reporter turned to liberal former prosecutor Linda Fairstein, who skewered the report in consecutive sound bites. Quijano added her own unfavorable language as she introduced Fairstein: QUIJANO: In addition to social influences, the report cites poor seminary training and isolation of priests. But for former New York City sex crimes prosecutor Linda Fairstein, blaming the culture rings hollow . LINDA FAIRSTEIN, FORMER PROSECUTOR: These crimes occurred for decades, if not centuries, before there was a sexual revolution. That's a fact . QUIJANO: The Church provided the information for analysis, and makes a controversial decision to label priests pedophiles only if they molested children age 10 or younger. By their standards, only 5% of the priests fit the pedophile profile. FAIRSTEIN: That's such a false standard- such a false definition by which to look at pedophiles . Most of the kids that the clergy have access to alone are going to be in the 9, 10, to 15, 16-year-old category. It's illegal to engage in sexual contact with them. So, it's a very artificial thing. It's semantics to just say we're talking about under 10. Near the end of the segment, the correspondent added a final clip from a Catholic churchgoer. Despite the negative-leaning assessment from the person she interviewed, Quijano introduced the bite as an example of the ” mixed reaction from Catholics leaving church today ” to the report's findings. The following morning, Thursday's Early Show ran a slightly modified version of the correspondent's report. Just over a year earlier, on the April 13, 2010 edition of the morning program, Quijano highlighted a Catholic priest from Massachusetts who is a ” longtime critic of the Church's response to the sex abuse scandal ,” but didn't mention the cleric's dissenting positions from Catholic teaching. The full transcript of Elaine Quijano's report from Wednesday's CBS Evening News: 06:30 pm EDT KATIE COURIC (teaser): Tonight, a report commissioned by the Catholic Church claims to know why the child sex abuse scandal happened, but victims' groups aren't buying it. (….) 06:31 pm EDT COURIC: When the sex abuse scandal involving priests first made headlines, Catholics in this country- and that's nearly one out of four adults- were horrified: trusted members of the clergy abusing children, church leaders covering it up. It was a betrayal, a breach of faith, and it would cost American churches nearly $3 billion in legal settlements. Many Catholics demanded to know how it all happened. Today, an answer came in a report commissioned by America's Catholic bishops. But Elaine Quijano reports, it was not the answer many of the victims were hoping for. ELAINE QUIJANO (voice-over): For survivors of clergy sexual abuse, today marks another deep disappointment. DAVID LORENZ, VICTIM OF CLERGY SEXUAL ABUSE: These are the bishops who lied to us about transferring priests- these are the same bishops who continue to lie to us. QUIJANO: The new report, five years in the making, was commissioned by U.S. bishops, and conducted by researchers from New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice. It partially blames the clergy sex abuse crisis on the sexual revolution that began 50 years ago. KAREN TERRY, PHD, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, CLERGY SEX ABUSE REPORT: The increased frequency of abuse in the 1960s and 1970s is consistent with patterns of increased deviance in society during that time. The social influences intersected with vulnerabilities of some individual priests. QUIJANO: In addition to social influences, the report cites poor seminary training and isolation of priests. But for former New York City sex crimes prosecutor Linda Fairstein, blaming the culture rings hollow. LINDA FAIRSTEIN, FORMER PROSECUTOR: These crimes occurred for decades, if not centuries, before there was a sexual revolution. That's a fact. QUIJANO: The Church provided the information for analysis, and makes a controversial decision to label priests pedophiles only if they molested children age 10 or younger. By their standards, only 5% of the priests fit the pedophile profile. FAIRSTEIN: That's such a false standard- such a false definition by which to look at pedophiles. Most of the kids that the clergy have access to alone are going to be in the 9, 10, to 15, 16-year-old category. It's illegal to engage in sexual contact with them. So, it's a very artificial thing. It's semantics to just say we're talking about under 10. QUIJANO: Researchers also concluded there was no way to identify potential abusers ahead of time, and said homosexuality, celibacy, and an all-male priesthood had no bearing on the crisis.
Continue reading …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 …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 …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 …We have been wondering all week whether Speaker John Boehner and the Senate Republican leadership will actively lobby and whip the Republican Senate conference to support Representative Paul Ryan’s disastrous and cruel budget plan that would gut Medicare. We now have an answer to this question. The Hill is reporting today that Senate Republican leaders do not have the testicular fortitude to whip Paul Ryan’s plan to gut Medicare: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) is leaving Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget plan to its own fate in the Senate by not whipping his GOP colleagues on the vote. Republican senators say McConnell has made it clear he will vote for the House Budget Committee chairman’s plan, but has said rank-and-file members should vote as they want on the 2012 budget proposal. Okay then. McConnell is not up for re-election until 2014. According to the article Sens. Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), two key members of the Republican Leadership will vote for Ryan’s proposal but that does not mean anything. Kyle is retiring and Alexander is not up for re-election until 2014 either. If these guys were really excited and supportive of Ryan’s extreme budget plan, they would have actively whipped it. That is not happening as they are playing hot potatoes with it. Boy, when these Republicans need to impose party discipline they are ruthless about it yet we are seeing none of that here because they just do not have the courage to vigorously lobby their colleagues to support it. So how do their counterparts in the House Republican Leadership feel about this? Eric Cantor and the entire right wing movement spent the whole week beating up on Newt Blingrich for daring to speak up against Ryan’s “right wing social engineering” project . What are they going to do now that even the Senate Republican leadership is too cowardly to embrace this crazy plan? Are we going to hear from Boehner, Cantor, and Ryan if a “group of centrists” Republicans in the Senate decide to run away from Ryan’s joke of a budget plan? However, many Republicans are undecided, and a group of centrists is leaning against voting for the plan because it would cut Medicare benefits substantially. Ryan’s proposal calls for $5.8 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years and would transform Medicare and Medicaid. One GOP senator who spoke on the condition of anonymity expressed his belief that Ryan made a serious tactical mistake by spelling out Medicare reforms in his budget plan. Uh, the translation here is: They preferred Ryan hid behind some Frank Luntz talking points without offering any specifics. It is not going to work this time. The cat is out of the bag now for these guys and they will have to make a choice between what should be a lose-lose proposition on the Senate Floor next week. If the Senate Republicans embrace the Ryan plan, they will go on record supporting a cruel and draconian budget plan that would gut Medicare as we know it and double the cost of health care for our seniors. It would also enact – to quote Newt – a right-wing vision of “social engineering” by putting insurance company bureaucrats between patients and their doctors, giving them the power to decide what tests and treatments seniors can get. They will get destroyed on the campaign trail for it. If they choose to walk away from it? Well, in that situation, they should be under fire from the crazy and reactionary House Republicans and their frothing constituencies from the Fox audience and corporate-funded Tea Party groupies. Not a pretty situation for these guys, and it is a reason why we are seeing guys like Scott Brown coming unglued in front of our eyes.
Continue reading …Leaked paper reveals ministers want to raise retirement age to 66 and increase contributions by 3.3 percentage points Millions of teachers, nurses, civil servants and members of the armed forces will be thousands of pounds poorer in retirement as well as having to work longer after ministers set out plans for the deepest cuts ever made to state employee pensions. The starting offer in the government’s negotiations, made privately to unions but leaked to the Guardian, reveals they are poised to adopt nearly all of the proposals in the independent report by Lord Hutton, the Labour ex-minister. It proposed 6 million state employees should pay more in, work longer and receive smaller pensions while keeping the final-salary (defined benefit) scheme, which is more generous than most in the private sector. But sources close to the talks say the government’s opening offer has further eroded the value of pensions. Some unions are now clamouring for strike action, claiming the government has left them nothing to negotiate with. Pensions is the only issue over which all unions could legally launch coordinated strike action. Civil service and education unions representing 750,000 people are already moving to a 30 June strike. Other unions have been awaiting the outcome of the formal negotiations at the end of next month before striking, but many of those have been angered by this first written offer, made last week. The stakes were raised further on Thursday when two of the biggest and most militant unions, the Public and Commercial Services Union and Unite, signed an accord pledging to fight “vicious” spending cuts. The leaked “discussion paper”, written by the chief secretary to the treasury Danny Alexander, reveals that the government proposes to raise the retirement age to 66 for most state employees, and replace final salary schemes with pensions based on career salary averages. Contributions will increase by 3.3 percentage points with some protection for those earning less than £15,000 or £18,000.But it goes further, changing the rate of accruals so that the proportion of the average salary accrued for each year worked is reduced. Currently new teachers accrue one 60th of their final salary for every year they work, meaning they have to work for thirty years to receive half their annual salary in pension when they retire. The models in the paper suggest that this should rise to either one 80th, 90th or 100th, of the salary accrued for each year worked. It means some public sector workers would have to work ten years longer to get half of their average salary. Treasury sources stressed that the paper was simply a discussion paper, and not the final formal offer and that the accruals rates should not be taken in isolation from the rest of the package as a sign of the scheme’s generosity. But a source close to the talks said: “This is not the basis for negotiations and much, much worse than we expected.” Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister leading the talks, said in a speech to senior civil servants on Thursday that civil service pensions would “remain among the very best available” and that all pensions already accrued would be honoured. He added: “However, it is a fact that people are living longer, which means that pensions are costing significantly more. We cannot expect other taxpayers to fund the increased costs of our pensions, particularly at a time when for many of them their pension benefits have been significantly reduced.” Public sector pensions Civil service Public services policy Public sector cuts Public finance Danny Alexander Trade unions Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Former IMF chief agrees to strict bail terms, including $5m insurance bond and order to remain under armed house arrest The former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been bailed by a New York court as he faces trial for allegedly sexually assaulting a maid in a Manhattan hotel. Judge Michael Obus set bail terms of $1m in cash as well as $5m in an insurance bond set against the international politician’s properties in the US. He also demanded that Strauss-Kahn surrender all his travel documents and that he remain under house arrest in Manhattan under 24-hour armed guard. The ruling, issued at a Manhattan criminal court, will release the former IMF chief from his humiliating custody on Rikers Island, where he was held since being arrested on Saturday accused of having attacked a hotel maid. Strauss-Kahn attended the hearing wearing a grey suit and light grey shirt. The judge said he had based his decision on the sole concern of the court: that Strauss-Kahn return to court to face justice. It was revealed during the proceedings that the grand jury of 23 members that has been sitting this week to consider the case against Strauss-Kahn has voted for an indictment to proceed against him. The precise terms of the indictment, including three counts of violent crimes, are likely to remain undisclosed until he is formally arraigned within the next 10 days, but it removes a major hurdle to the economist facing trial. According to the charge sheet compiled by police, Strauss-Kahn is accused of sexually assaulting the hotel maid who came into his room at the Sofitel hotel in midtown Manhattan last Saturday lunchtime. The woman entered the room thinking it was empty. Strauss-Kahn is alleged to have come out of the bathroom naked and locked the door to the room before sexually assaulting her twice, once in the main room and once in the bathroom. Representing the defendant, William Taylor argued to the court that Strauss-Kahn was an “honourable man” who had only one desire at this time, “to clear his name”. He presented the judge with the details of a New York security company, Stroz Friedberg, that would be responsible for ensuring that the former IMF chief would not flee the country. Stringent conditions would include an electronic bracelet that would send a signal to the company and a police station the moment Strauss-Kahn left the property, video cameras to monitor him inside the property, and a 24-hour rotation of armed guards who would be physically present at the apartment. Taylor said that Strauss-Kahn’s wife, Anne Sinclair, had bought a property in Manhattan under her name, and that it had been scoped out and approved by the security company as a suitable location for him to remain under house arrest. “There is nothing more restrictive that can be accomplished along these lines,” Taylor said, adding that a large cash sum, believed to be $1m, had also been proposed as surety. But he complained that the prosecutors’ response had been “no, no, no, not that there has been any question of credibility of these conditions. That position is unfair.” Taylor pointed to Sinclair and Strauss-Kahn’s daughter Camille, both of whom were sitting in court holding each other’s hand. The lawyer referred to the two women as the defendant’s “beautiful family”. “The idea that he would attempt to live the rest of his life as an accused sex offender in France as a fugitive is ludicrous,” Taylor said. Taylor sought to rebut the suggestion that Strauss-Kahn had shown a suspiciously hasty departure from his hotel room in Manhattan last Saturday before his arrest at JFK airport by producing Air France paperwork that showed his flight to Paris had been booked in advance. He said the defendant had surrendered both his passports and that his UN passport would be handed over by the weekend. Of the charges that he faces, he said: “We expect that Mr Strauss-Kahn will be vindicated. But that’s for another day.” The Manhattan district attorney, who is leading the prosecution of the former IMF boss, told the judge that he was facing serious charges with strong evidence amassing against him. “While the investigation is still in the early stages, the proof against him is substantial and continuing to grow every day,” said John McConnell, speaking for the prosecution. He said that the maid, a widow from Guinea in west Africa aged 32 who has been named by some French papers, had told a consistent story to investigators and had immediately sounded the alarm to hotel staff and police. Forensic tests taken from the alleged victim have yet to be completed, but “evidence supporting the victim’s account has already been found”. According to McConnell, Strauss-Kahn presented a “substantial flight risk. He is an international figure who truly has global influence and that gives him potential access to enormous economic resources.” Under questioning by the judge, it was revealed that the defendant has a US bank account with a “low seven-figure sum” in it. Given his resources and influence, the prosecution said that no bail could be set high enough to ensure that the defendant would return to face trial. “His own conduct in this case has shown a propensity to compulsive criminal conduct,” McConnell said. Dominique Strauss-Kahn IMF Economics Global economy New York United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …