Lib Dem leader seeks to distance party from Tories – but Cameron fails to give him credit for moderating policies Nick Clegg is to begin the delicate process of distancing himself from the Conservatives’ embrace in the wake of last week’s election results, by asserting that “this is a coalition of necessity and not conviction”. In a speech on Wednesday to mark the anniversary of the coalition and the start of a second phase, he will promise to blow his party’s trumpet more and spell out where it has moderated the Conservatives’ position through what the Lib Dems describe as their blend of social fairness and economic efficiency. But the claim that the Lib Dems have softened the impact of some Conservative policies was rejected by David Cameron, who said in interviews: “I don’t accept the whole idea that the role of one party is somehow to moderate the other. The Conservative party, under my leadership, has changed. It is a new and different Conservative party.” In an indication of the more public disputes ahead, he also refused to give Clegg credit for imposing a rethink on the government’s NHS reforms. In his speech Clegg will admit last week’s election results were awful and rule out any prospect of a centre-right realignment, describing such talk as “nonsensical and naive”. He will promise: “In the next phase of the coalition, both partners will be able to be clearer in their identities, but equally clear about the need to support government and government policy. We will stand together, but not so closely that we stand in each other’s shadow. You will see a strong liberal identity in a strong coalition government. You might even call it muscular liberalism.” With some cabinet members anxious at the prospect of collective discipline collapsing as briefing wars break out across the coalition, Clegg will argue he can be more assertive without threatening the government’s stability. “Nobody wants a return to the nightmarish coalition that existed between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Nobody wants tit-for-tat government.” But he will also list things his party has blocked by being in coalition, including a replacement for Trident in this parliament, cutting inheritance tax for the wealthiest, renegotiating fundamental elements of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, building more prisons and replacing the Human Rights Act. Clegg will try to give his anxious party a glimpse of how it can rebuild a new constituency in time for the next election. He will insist the Lib Dems “will not define ourselves in relation to the other parties. If it requires a position on a spectrum, it is the centre. We are camped on the liberal centre ground of British politics. And we’re not moving.” He will also argue that the party can develop a unique offer to the electorate as the party that combines economic efficiency and social justice. He will say: “There is a reason neither of the two bigger parties won last May. Neither of them were really trusted to deliver both a strong, dynamic economy and a fair society. We can be trusted on both counts. At the next election we will say that we are demonstrably more economically credible than Labour, and more committed at heart to fairness than the Conservatives. “I am confident that showing we can combine economic soundness with social justice – competence with a conscience – will make us an even more formidable political force in the future. There are millions of people who want a liberal politics of the centre.” However, a host of cabinet ministers and senior Tories have undermined Clegg’s claim to be a moderating influence by stressing how much Liberal Democrat support has allowed the coalition to be more radical on public service changes and the deficit than if the Conservatives had been a minority administration. In interviews conducted with Andrew Rawnsley for his Channel 4 documentary A Year Inside Downing Street, but not broadcast, a succession of Tories hail the impact of the Liberal Democrats. The work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, says: “It’s helpful that we have two parties in tow pursuing a reform agenda because it means that you face really only one party [Labour] that is opposed to it. It does help that we’ve got two tied together so it leaves you only one political force to deal with. It helps also to persuade the other side that they are in a minority. “We’ve got a lot – my welfare reforms, the education reforms, the budget, huge changes – all of these are big, big Conservative-driven themes”. Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, states: “There’s a massive advantage in being a two-party government for whose parties 60% of the voters had voted at the election. If we’d been a minority government potentially facing the prospect of an early, snap, opportunistic election to try and secure a majority, it would have been much more difficult to put in place the tough programme of deficit reduction that we did.” William Hague, the foreign secretary says: “A Conservative government with a very small majority or in a minority would have been massively constrained in what we could take through parliament.” The chancellor, George Osborne, states: “We have put together a much stronger coalition government than anyone would have believed possible the morning after the general election and we’ve been able to take on big issues, not just on the economy, but on welfare, education, police reform. And that’s because there’s an appetite from all members of the government, Liberal Democrat and Conservative, to not waste this period in government but to do things with it to improve our country.” Cameron himself hints the coalition has developed an ideology of its own. “There’s been a sense that we don’t want to be a lowest common denominator government just trying to legislate where we agree.” One of the leaders of the Tory right, David Davis, claims: “The people who’ve paid the price for the coalition are the Liberals. The really big intellectual move for the Liberals was the move to accept the cuts. More than accept the cuts: to actually accept they were going to be the front of the cuts. “This was the point at which the Orange Book Liberals, essentially Gladstonian Liberals, came to the fore and said: yes, we’ve got to do this. And once they’d taken that leap into the cold water, they couldn’t pull back. They don’t have an escape. They have the best seats in the aeroplane and no parachutes. So they’re not going to blow the aeroplane up. It is simply not going to happen. “They’re going to enjoy the ride all the way to the destination. And hope at the end they get to where they want to be.” Liberal-Conservative coalition Nick Clegg David Cameron Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Activists fear ecological haven will be destroyed but government says project is vital for economic growth Chilean authorities have approved a £1.8bn plan to dam two rivers in Patagonia for hydroelectricity, triggering angry protests and claims that swathes of pristine wilderness will be destroyed. The HidroAysén project envisages five dams to tap the Baker and Pascua rivers, an isolated area of fjords and valleys, and generate 2.75 gigawatts of power for Chile’s booming economy. The government has championed the dams as vital to poverty alleviation and economic growth, but public opinion has split, with many saying the project is unnecessary and will devastate an ecological haven. Police arrested dozens of protesters and clashed with hundreds more in Coihaique, a Patagonian city where on Monday a government-appointed commission voted 11 to one in favour of the dams after a three-year environmental review. The commissioners were kept indoors for their own safety as people threw rocks and battled police with water cannon and tear gas. Similar scenes unfolded in the capital, Santiago. The Patagonia Without Dams advocacy group accused the commissioners of conflicts of interest and said the project was “destructive and illegal”. It said the dams would flood at least 5,600 hectares of rare forest ecosystems, river valleys and farmland. “We are outraged. We are calling on President [Sebastián] Piñera to overturn this decision and protect Patagonia,” said Patricio Rodrigo, the group’s executive secretary. Critics say the project would also drown the habitat of the endangered southern huemul deer, a national symbol. An Ipsos poll said 61% of Chileans opposed the dams. The polarisation offered a sharp contrast to the nation’s feelgood glow after last year’s rescue of 31 trapped miners, an operation which boosted the conservative president’s ratings. The environment minister, María Ignacia Benítez, denied the commission’s findings were a stitch-up in favour of energy corporations and banks which would profit from the project. The “very demanding” investigation adhered to laws and took into account the environmental impact, she told Radio Agricultura. HidroAysén argued that the dams would provide cheap and clean electricity in comparison to oil and coal. Chile recently approved three coal plants, including the biggest one in Latin America. The interior minister, Rodrigo Hinzpeter, told reporters: “The most important thing is that our country needs to grow, to progress, and for this we need energy.” Some analysts say Chile will need to triple its energy capacity in the next 15 years to feed fast-growing industries and cities. Though rich in copper and other minerals, the country imports 97% of its fossil fuels and relies mainly on hydropower for electricity, leaving it vulnerable to oil shocks and drought. The council of ministers is expected to nod through the proposed dams but activists hope to win key concessions in the environmental impact assessment for the next phase of the project: 1,200-mile transmission lines, estimated to cost £2.3bn, to bring electricity from Patagonia to Santiago. That review, due in December, could sharply restrict the number of lines or alternatively open Patagonia to multiple lines, roads and possibly more dams. Much of the controversy hinges on whether Chile has viable alternative means to boost power capacity. With nuclear power widely considered anathema, some tout the Atacama desert as a source of immense solar thermal production, especially given its relative proximity to mines and industry. “Numerous studies have shown that Chile can sustainably and safely meet its energy needs through increased investments in non-conventional renewable energy and energy efficiency, with less environmental, social and economic costs than HidroAysén,” said Berklee Lowrey-Evans, of the International Rivers group. However Maria Isabel Gonzalez, former head of Chile’s National Energy Commission, rebuked foreign critics of the plan. “Chile is still a poor country, with 2.5 million poor people, and to overcome poverty we need energy, and for that reason we need to develop our own resources,” she told AP. “It would be very selfish on the part of the rich countries to say, ‘Look how they’re destroying these uninhabited pristine areas.’
Continue reading …
The once-dominant software company has agreed to pay more than three times Skype’s valuation just 18 months ago Microsoft’s acquisition of Skype, its biggest ever, is an $8.5bn (£5bn) gamble to try to catch up with Apple and Google. The software company, once so dominant, has been left behind by its more fleet-footed competitors as the pace of technological change – especially in mobile telecoms – has outstripped its ability to innovate. Analysts saw the deal, which edges out the $6bn it paid for online advertising company aQuantive in 2007, as a sign of Microsoft’s ambition to become a bigger force in the consumer and smartphone market. They also interpreted it as a sign that Microsoft intends to broaden its appeal to businesses by using Skype to offer cheaper services than existing phone companies. Skype, which has 663m people across the world registered to use its Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) communications, is available on personal computers and mobile phones – though not yet on Microsoft’s new Windows Phone operating system. That is expected to be remedied soon. The deal will see it established as a separate business inside Microsoft, dubbed Microsoft Skype. Tony Bates, the Skype chief executive, will become president of Microsoft Skype and report directly to Microsoft’s chief executive, Steve Ballmer. Ballmer, who tried to buy Yahoo three years ago for $45bn, spelled out his vision: “Skype is a phenomenal service that is loved by millions of people around the world. Together we will create the future of real-time communications so people can easily stay connected to family, friends, clients and colleagues anywhere in the world.” Others were less enthusiastic and highlighted the difficulty Microsoft faces in monetising Skype, whose telephony service is free between users. “It doesn’t make sense at all as a financial investment,” said Forrester Research analyst Andrew Bartels. “There’s no way Microsoft is going to generate enough revenue and profit from Skype to compensate.” Another, Shanghai-based Michael Clendenin, managing director of consulting firm RedTech, said: “If you consider Skype was just valued at about $2.5bn 18 months ago when a chunk was sold off, then $8.5bn seems generous and means Microsoft has a high wall to climb to prove to investors that Skype is a necessary linchpin for the company’s online and mobile strategy.” But despite Skype never having turned a profit, analysts were mostly enthusiastic. “For me, this actually looks like a near-perfect fit for Skype,” said Dean Bubley of Disruptive Analysis. “A substantial part of Skype’s current user base is from PCs. Although mobile devices get all the glory at the moment, Skype epitomises what’s best about desktop VoIP.” Next frontier Horace Dediu, a former Nokia business development executive who now runs the Asymco consultancy, said: “I see this as a pattern of consolidation of voice business models. I don’t think it’s coincidental that Apple, Microsoft and Google are all trying to secure assets, intellectual property, experts and businesses in VoIP and in voice control. “Voice is the next frontier both in IP-based communications and in user interfaces. Skype happens to have a very large pool of users who can be engaged with multiple services besides voice. These additional services can be the root of new business models. Microsoft has plenty of degrees of freedom to experiment with: Windows Live, [search engine] Bing, Windows Phone etc.” Google and Facebook were last week rumoured to be in the running for Skype but Microsoft emerged as prime bidder. The company already has three other VoIP offerings, via MSN Messenger, Xbox Live and Lync, used in its Office division. It is not clear how usernames will be integrated among them. Ballmer confirmed that Skype will continue to be developed for non-Windows platforms. Skype’s principal source of revenue is international calls made by people unwilling to pay standard voice rates, which can be far higher. The analysis company Telegeography noted that Skype’s international traffic volume grew by 39bn minutes in 2010 – twice the amount of all phone companies in the world combined. “Demand for international communications is probably limitless,” said Stephen Beckert, a Telegeography analyst. “Skype has taught millions of callers they no longer need a telco to talk to friends, family and business partners abroad.” Incorporating Skype into Windows Phone – which will be used by the Finnish phone-maker Nokia in forthcoming smartphones – could also have advantages in countries such as Latin America, where people find voice calls too expensive and prefer to use data services, said Stela Bokun of Pyramid Research. “At the end of 2011, 40% of handset users in Latin America and Mexico will be using handsets that are 3G+ enabled,” she told the Guardian. That could offer a route for Skype. Other possibilities in emerging markets include using Skype credits as payment for internet access, she said. Skype has never made a profit: in 2010 it recorded a loss of $7m on revenues of $860m – $1.30 per registered user a year, or $5 per “connected” user a year. While revenues have been growing it has been able to negotiate better call termination rates around the world with telephone companies. The acquisition is the second in Skype’s eight-year history. In October 2005 it was bought by eBay for $2.5bn, but was 70% sold in October 2009 to a consortium of private equity and venture capitalists. The purchase is subject to US regulatory approval, which the companies hope to secure later this year. Skype Internet Telecoms Mergers and acquisitions Technology sector Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Mr Heick has “concerns” about his new neighbors so he put up this sign, see. Perfectly normal, completely rational response to a provocative situation. Right? Dumbass. From The Buffalo News : A feud between two Transit Road neighbors — a homeowner and a mosque — turned ugly this weekend when the homeowner staked a sign on his front lawn insinuating that the new 11,600-square-foot Islamic worship site is home to a “bomb making” operation. Michael Heick, who lives next door to the Jaffarya Islamic Center of Niagara Frontier, put a small sign that reads “Bomb Making Next Driveway” to northbound traffic on Transit Road. The next driveway on the same side of the road as Heick’s home heading north is the Jaffarya Center, at 10300 Transit. Mosque members and other area Muslims objected to the sign and called upon Heick to take it down. “I would really think it’s an incitement of hatred against Muslims,” said Dr. Syed Jaffri, an Amherst psychiatrist and member of the mosque’s board of trustees. “Law enforcement should take it very seriously. Tomorrow, somebody could say, ‘Oh they have weapons,’ and people believe it.” Heick said he put up the sign because he was frustrated with how the mosque and Amherst town officials have handled his concerns about the building, which opened in November.
Continue reading …
This is a welcome statement coming from an unlikely source. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus says he doesn’t think Congress will address Social Security as part of an effort to reduce government borrowing. The Montana Democrat said Tuesday that Social Security has not added to the budget deficit, so it should not be included in a deficit reduction package. Baucus is part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by Vice President Joe Biden, who are trying to negotiate such a package. Baucus said Social Security’s finances should be addressed in the next couple of years. But he also said the program is not in a crisis. At least he said “the program is not in a crisis” and that Social Security doesn’t add to the deficit. Where’s Dick Durbin on this? Why isn’t he the one standing up and doing the right thing instead of standing with the most Dangerous Gang in America ? enlarge
Continue reading …
Lloyds, RBS, Barclays and HSBC face huge staff costs and admit £5bn needed to compensate PPI customers The big high-street banks are preparing to hire up to 6,000 workers to tackle complaints from millions of customers wrongly sold payment protection insurance. The banks are believed to be seeking temporary offices to house the army of staff needed to contact customers who may be in line for a payout after the banks abandoned their legal action against a decision by the Financial Services Authority to demand they compensate customers mis-sold PPI. Contingency plans are now being dusted down by the banks, which have disclosed that they face bills of more than £5bn to compensate their customers andcover the adminstration costs involved. None of the banks – Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays and HSBC – was prepared to disclose their staffing requirements as a result of the PPI climbdown. However, industry sources said that they expected up to 6,000 staff to be needed. Bailed-out Lloyds, which started the capitulation by the banks last week by announcing a £3.2bn provision, has linked up with outsourcing company Huntswood to bring in 500 extra staff. Industry sources believe its headcount is likely to swell – at least temporarily – by 1,000 or more while it works through all the complaints it faces as the largest player in the market. A Lloyds spokesman said: “We are already using third parties and internal resources to deal with PPI complaints. We are keen to move quickly to bring about resolution for our customers”. It is estimated to have a share of around 40% of PPI, which was intended to keep up loan repayments in the event of illness or redundancy. In reality the insurance rarely paid out and many customers bought it without being aware they had. The PPI payout industry that is expected to be created comes at a time when banks have been making employees redundant to trim costs. Lloyds alone has cut more than 26,000 roles as it integrates HBOS, which it rescued in the banking crisis, into its operations. One banker said that staff facing redundancy might now be offered redeployment to work on complaints handling, while others reckoned that outsourcing firms such as Huntswood and Capita would be asked to help provide temporary staff as quickly as possible to contact customers and to work on the dedicated hotlines that are being established. The industry went through a similar process during the endowment mis-selling scandal when staff were housed in temporary backup sites around the UK to process the paperwork. Complaints handlers – unlike many banking roles – do not need to be directly regulated by the Financial Services Authority but fall under the compliance finance functions of banks, which are regulated directly. One banker said there was substantial concern about call centres having enough capacity to deal with the inquiries that will be sparked by the recent publicity, even before banks start their efforts to contact customers. Lloyds is particularly affected as its takeover of HBOS means it also owns Halifax, which was also active in PPI. Even before the latest move by the industry to facilitate large-scale compensation payments, Lloyds had already begun a mass mailshot of more than 230,000 Halifax credit card customers. The project Kestrel programme began in January to target customers who were sold policies in 2008 and 2009. Banks are refusing to say how long they expect to take to handle all the PPI complaints, some of which have been in limbo while the now abandoned legal action was underway. Observers believe it will take at least until the end of the year to scrutinise all the claims. While Lloyds has said its provision for PPI will be £3.2bn, Barclays has disclosed a figure of £1bn, RBS £1bn – if compensation paid and past provisions are included – and HSBC £280m. City minister Mark Hoban blamed the regulatory regime created by Labour – rather than the banks – for the PPI debacle. Hoban said: “One aspect of the reforms that we are introducing by setting up the financial conduct authority is to give the regulator more powers to intervene earlier to prevent that sort of scandal happening again.” Payment protection insurance Banking Lloyds Banking Group Royal Bank of Scotland Barclays HSBC Insurance Insurance industry Financial Services Authority (FSA) Jill Treanor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Bleak assessment of ‘uncomfortable realities’ as poll finds European centre left lacking credibility Labour is facing a deep crisis that threatens its survival as a party of power, Ed Milibandwill be warned, on Wednesday as he is told to avoid the “politics of protest” and to focus on establishing political credibility. In a bleak description of the challenge facing Labour, one of the main authors of its general election manifesto says it will become a serious contender for power only by facing “uncomfortable realities”. Patrick Diamond, who helped write the manifesto with Miliband, makes his intervention before a conference in Oslo for European centre-left leaders, which the Labour leader will attend on Thursday and Friday. In a joint article for the Guardian’s Comment is free , written with Olaf Cramme, director of the Policy Network thinktank, which is organising the Oslo conference, Diamond writes: “Labour’s ejection from office mirrors an even starker European trend, as the pendulum has swung aggressively against the left. Local council victories last Thursday cannot disguise the governing crisis which threatens Labour’s very survival as a party of power.” Policy Network, founded by Lord Mandelson, is to publish the findings of a YouGov opinion poll that shows a public lack of confidence in the ability of the European centre-left to govern for the mainstream. The poll was conducted in the US and in Britain, Germany and Sweden – three European countries where the centre left has suffered major setbacks in recent years. It found: • A lack of faith in the ability of governments to stand up to vested interests – just 16% believed they could in the UK, 21% in Germany and 27% in Sweden. This leads to scepticism about the ability of government-led action to improve societies, with 29% in the UK and 27% in Germany questioning whether governments can be an effective force. • A strong belief among centre-right voters that centre-left governments tax too much, with not enough public benefit. Over two-thirds of Tory voters (68%) and 30% of Liberal Democrats believe this. • Pessimism about the benefits of a university degree. Scepticism is highest in Britain (79%), with the deepest reservations among the 18- to 24-year-olds (83%) and the over-60s (88%). Diamond and Cramme argue that the centre-left needs to adjust its thinking if it wants to return to government. “There is simply no substitute for hard thinking and engagement with uncomfortable realities,” they write. “This is a precondition of becoming a serious contender for power.” In a document for the Progressive Governance Conference, the thinktank warns that centre-left parties have failed to adjust to deep concerns about the scale of fiscal deficits. It says the centre-left is failing to persuade voters it can govern effectively, creating a “governing crisis” as opposed to a less serious “electoral crisis”. The Policy Network document says: “The predicament facing the European left has to be understood as a governing crisis, not merely an electoral crisis. There is little sense of a coherent ideological programme through which social democrats might govern in the future in a world transformed irrevocably by the global financial crisis. It is not simply that social democrats have failed to win elections at the national level. Rather, it is the lack of public confidence that social democrats have a clear idea of what to do with power when they win.” The document adds: “Over the last two years, the recurring question has been why, in the midst of a crisis whose origins clearly implicate the neoliberal right, it is social democrats who appear battle weary and defensive. The cause of the left’s malaise is now increasingly apparent. “The economic crisis which began with a wave of sub-prime lending in the United States has hastily been redefined as a crisis of public debt and government deficits. In other words, it is the question of the state – its size, its role, its efficiency – that has become the central issue, not the inherent instability of markets and free-market ideology.” Cramme issues a warning to Miliband, who has faced criticism among Blairites for appearing to liken the campaign against the cuts to the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa when he spoke at the TUC rally in Hyde Park. “In a period of economic hardship, it is tempting for social democratic parties to align themselves with the politics of protest,” the director of the Mandelson thinktank writes. “It is of course imperative that we prevent an economic crisis from becoming a social crisis through mass unemployment, welfare retrenchment and deep cuts in public services. The left can best do this, however, if it is in government, able to engage with hard realities and tough choices.” Labour Ed Miliband Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Tom Kummer outdid his rivals with fabricated exclusives – now documentary tells how he fooled German media The Hollywood press pack just couldn’t understand it. How was a Swiss young buck persuading the world’s biggest stars to lay bare their lives while the rest of them tried to cook up something even vaguely interesting from the dull scraps they were thrown every time a celebrity had something to promote? And Tom Kummer really did scoop them all. He got Mike Tyson to pontificate on Nietzsche, discussed Kierkegaard with Sean Penn and listened to Courtney Love intellectualise her breast-baring habit and talk of how she thrived on “disillusionment … joyless sex, reincarnation”. He discovered hidden depths in Bruce Willis, who revealed a particularly bleak philosophy when he said: “I understood pretty early on that we do not advance through morality, but immorality, vices, cynicism.” In one of Kummer’s early hits, Pamela Anderson shared her thoughts on William Gibson’s Neuromancer, a radical and difficult work which has become the set text of the cyberpunk sci-fi genre. There was only one problem with Kummer’s exclusives. He had made them all up. When he was eventually caught in 2000 after delivering a particularly eye-opening interview with Christina Ricci and a rival blew the whistle, he refused to say sorry, insisting that he specialised in what he called “borderline journalism”. Now a controversial film tells the story of how Germany’s most respected publications gobbled up his inventions without ever asking to hear the tapes. The documentary, Bad Boy Kummer, has ruffled feathers in the highest echelons of the German-language media by issuing an uncomfortable reminder that some of their top names, including Ulf Poschardt, now a senior executive at the Axel Springer publishing house, happily printed Kummer’s fabrications for years. The film was made by Miklós Gimes, another of Kummer’s victims – or, to use Kummer’s preferred term, “Kummer junkies”. In the 1990s, Gimes was one of Kummer’s most faithful customers when he was deputy editor of the Tages-Anzeiger magazine, a supplement of the Swiss national newspaper. Gimes says his desire is to “crack” Kummer, to understand why someone with such literary and intellectual talents ended up passing off fiction as truth to He travels to Los Angeles, where Kummer now teaches paddle tennis, an aptly fraudulent sort of sport that uses smaller courts and less bouncy balls than the original. He watches as Kummer rummages through his archives and reads, with clear delight, from his most notorious interviews. Acting out his Tyson interview, when the disgraced boxer apparently reveals that he ate cockroaches in jail “for the protein”, he smiles with no sense of guilt. “I must say I’m impressed. I still think that it was a great interview,” he says. Britain’s GQ magazine agreed, and syndicated the article. “It wasn’t difficult to make Tom take part,” says Gimes in a voiceover. “He doesn’t want to be forgotten.” the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Zeit and other highbrow European publications. Many people have criticised Gimes for feeding Kummer’s desire for fame, which began in the 1980s when he was photographed by Nan Goldin in West Berlin nightclubs as a preposterously handsome youth who looked like a cross between Jean-Paul Belmondo in Breathless and Zinedine Zidane in his prime. At the Berlin premiere last week, one man angrily chastised the director for giving Kummer the oxygen of publicity. But Gimes insists it was not his intention to “heroise or rehabilitate” his subject, but to “tell a story”. He admits he paid Kummer to take part, “but just for his time – he had no creative control over the film”. In an interview with the Guardian, Kummer said the film had “nice moments” but he was disappointed that the most important of his former editors, including Poschardt, refused to take part. Poschardt, who with another Süddeutsche executive was forced to resign after Kummer’s deception was unearthed, refused to comment when contacted by the Guardian. Kummer insists he has nothing to say sorry for. “I wrote impressionistic, creative, literary descriptions of the life of stars in the form of so-called interviews. “Any professional editor, unless he or his organisation are completely incompetent, would have recognised this.” He says that in the mid-80s he saw himself as more of an artist than a common or garden journalist. “I believed that journalism can only touch part of the so-called truth, not truth itself. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we have art because we don’t have truth,” he said in an email interview, coming out with exactly the sort of highfalutin language he used to attribute to Kim Basinger and Zsa Zsa Gabor. Kummer insists his fake subjects played along because he made them look good. “For the last eight years I’ve played tennis with Jim Wiatt, former CEO of William Morris Agency, and he told me for example that his former clients Sharon Stone, Tom Hanks and Quentin Tarantino loved my interviews.” But why did he get away with it for so long? “Everybody loved my stuff and I guess they were addicted to some kind of illusion that stars should talk like I made them talk. “They all loved it and wanted more: readers, movie distribution people in Germany, advertisers and editors. “I was convinced that the editors knew everything – nobody asked for tapes, nobody asked for any kind of proof for more than six years – but they refused to admit it. I was playing the violin for them.” Other journalistic frauds Jayson Blair New York Times rising star Jayson Blair resigned from the paper in 2003 after admitting plagiarism and fraud. He faked the datelines on his stories, claiming to be in various far-flung corners of the US when really he was sitting at home in front of his laptop. When his deception was uncovered, the NYT ran a 7,239-word front-page mea culpa, which called the affair “a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper”. Stephen Glass While a cub reporter working for the American magazine New Republic in the 90s, Stephen Glass fabricated quotations, sources, and even entire events in articles. His fall from grace was detailed in the Hollywood film Shattered Glass. Janet Cooke In 1980, Washington Post writer Janet Cooke had to return her Pulitzer prize after she was found to have faked a much-praised interview with an eight-year-old heroin addict. Documentary Germany Europe Helen Pidd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly is so invested in torture he cannot let it go. He cannot. It is his signature issue, what he will carry water for no matter what the facts may be. He led off his show tonight with two questions. First, why does the President refuse to torture but has no problem killing terrorists? Two, can President Obama keep the nation safe when he refuses to torture terrorists to gain information to prevent attacks? Does this sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me? I realize I am preaching to the choir here on C&L, but maybe it’ll get in The Google enough times that some poor confused soul will actually happen across this post and understand why Bill O’Reilly is full of it. In order to accept BillO’s premise; that is, torture yields answers which will not be gotten any other way and it is the only way to get those answers, one must also accept that the Bush administration knew the name of Bin Laden’s courier way back in 2003 when the waterboarding interrogations were in full force and effect. And if that is the case, then why on earth would he put on Bush administration lackeys like Karl Rove to defend his arguments? What surprises me is how deeply invested O’Reilly is in this whole argument. He truly believes, with his entire heart and soul, that torturing someone is the only way to get information from them. Does he write for “24″? Either BillO is seriously into S&M or he’s got some kind of fixation with the idea that being violent with prisoners/detainees is a strong, manly way to behave. Rather than try to lay this out for BillO myself, I’m going to let Lawrence O’Donnell explain it in his own words, as broadcast on his Rewrite segment. Click here to view this media Simply put: Torture doesn’t work. If I were as nasty as O’Reilly, I’d suggest that he be waterboarded until he admitted torture doesn’t work, but I’m not. I’m guessing he’d agree that it doesn’t work in order to stop the torture, but then, he’d be lying, wouldn’t he? Do you feel safer under President Bush 0% (0 votes) President Obama 83% (5 votes) Neither of them. Terrorists gotta terrorize. 17% (1 vote) 6 votes
Continue reading …
Violence broke out around Tesco Express in Stokes Croft on two nights last month, with further night and day of violence following a week later The Tesco Express store in Bristol that has been the focus of violent protests is to be reopened, the chain has said. Tesco said the store, in the Stokes Croft area of the city, would be open for business again “soon”, arguing that local businesses and residents wanted it back. However, there will be fears that further protests could follow the reopening. “We will reopen the store soon,” a Tesco spokesman said. “We’re also playing our part in a community dialogue following the disorder. Local businesses and residents tell us they see us as a catalyst for further investment and regeneration – they want us to reopen.” Violence broke out around the store on two nights last month. A week later, there was another night and day of violence. There has long been opposition in Stokes Croft to the opening of the Tesco. However, local protestors claimed much of the violence was caused by people travelling from outside the area. Tesco representatives have met with the community’s newly-elected Green party councillor, Gus Hoyt, to discuss the unrest. Hoyt said he would be calling for an independent inquiry into the cause of the protests, adding: “The local community want to get to the bottom of what happened and move on.” The councillor had hoped that Tesco could be persuaded to “bow out gracefully” for “public safety”. Earlier, detective Chief Inspector Will White, of Avon and Somerset police, called for the public to help the force’s investigation into the incidents. He said: “A number of people have used the large disorders to commit serious criminal offences. “We are determined to identify the outstanding offenders who have done extensive damage to the Stokes Croft area to make them accountable to the local residents and businesses that experienced the consequences of their actions. “We need the assistance of the public to do this, and hope that these video clips and images prompt more people to come forward and help us bring the remaining offenders to justice.” Crime Tesco Supermarkets Retail industry Steven Morris Shiv Malik guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …