Takeover of internet phone service is tech giant’s biggest ever deal Microsoft confirmed on Tuesday it has agreed an $8.5bn (£5bn) cash deal to buy internet telephony service Skype, the biggest deal in its 36-year history. The acquisition will see Skype established as a separate business division inside Microsoft, dubbed Microsoft Skype, alongside XBox Live, Kinect and Windows Phone. Tony Bates, the Skype chief executive, will become president of Microsoft Skype and report directly to the technology giant’s chief executive, Steve Ballmer. “Skype is a phenomenal service that is loved by millions of people around the world,” said Ballmer. “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. “Tony Bates has a great track record as a leader and will strengthen the Microsoft management team. I’m looking forward to Skype’s talented global workforce bringing its insights, ideas and experience to Microsoft.” Bates added: “Microsoft and Skype share the vision of bringing software innovation and products to our customers. Together, we will be able to accelerate Skype’s plans to extend our global community and introduce new ways for everyone to communicate and collaborate. The acquisition is subject to US regulatory approval, which the companies hope to secure later this year. More details soon… •
Continue reading …
Tory MP says superinjunctions are an ‘overreaction’, but are inevitable given newspapers’ interest in celebrities’ private lives Zac Goldsmith, the influential backbench Conservative MP, responded to the growing ‘superinjuction’ crisis on Tuesday by calling for parliament to develop a privacy law – because some newspapers are unwilling “to distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is merely of prurient interest to some of the public”. The multimillionaire MP for Richmond Park also took the opportunity to speak about his own decision to take out a gagging order in 2008, as he sought to prevent the media from reporting that he, his sister Jemima Khan and his then wife Sheherazade had had their personal email accounts hacked. Despite that revealation, Goldsmith conceded that superinjunctions represented “an overreaction” on the part of wealthy celebrities and politicians, but said their existence was “an inevitable one” given repeated attempts by tabloids to write about people’s personal lives. Goldsmith, his former wife – whom he divorced in 2010 – and his sister all took out an injunction in December 2008 to prevent the publication of personal emails that that had been offered by an unnamed individual to a national newspaper. The court order was varied in March of this year to allow the identities of the three who had taken out the injunction to be made public. Describing his decision to go to law, the MP said: “The emails were private, and even the tabloids seemed to accept that there was no justification for publishing them.” However, Goldsmith agreed to allow his anonymity to be waived this year because “I do not want or need” it to maintained – before going onto to add that it was appropriate to keep the identity of the hacker secret because of the “person’s mental state”. High court judge Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled in March that the hacking of Goldsmith’s emails was “a flagrant breach of the law of confidence” but, “having regard to medical evidence” about the “fragile” individual who hacked into their accounts, agreed to keep that person’s identity secret. Reacting to that ruling, Goldsmith told the Guardian: “It is a perfect example of where a superinjunction is justified and right.” Possibly as a result of confusion relating to this case, Jemima Khan was separately – and wrongly – named as having taken out a gagging order to prevent “intimate photos” of herself and Jeremy Clarkson. Khan said the rumours were “untrue and upsetting” – although they remain in circulation on Twitter. Goldsmith said that he believed that the solution to the superinjunction problem was that “parliament should design proper privacy laws” so that “the media can do the job we want them to do, without fear, but that they don’t invade people’s privacy unless there’s good reason”. Noting that David Cameron had said earlier this month that we need to have “a discussion and a debate” about whether to introduce a privacy law, Goldsmith added: “The PM has said he wants parliament to take the initiative, and he’s right. I hope he follows through with it.” Goldsmith’s remarks come in a week in which some ministers were indicating their support for a privacy law. At least one senior minister is known to be in favour of legislation, but was sceptical about the prospect of getting it through parliament because of the storm that would be created around the issue. “I have always been in favour of a privacy law but see no prospect of getting one. It would take the lid off a Pandora’s box,” the minister said. A second minister, a Liberal Democrat, also indicated in private this week that they were open to the idea. However, Goldsmith conceded that it was a “grotesque flaw in the system” that only rich people could afford to pay the costs of an injunction – estimated at anywhere between £10,000 and £50,000 depending on the case. The MP said it would be fairer if the rules on costs could be changed so that the party who pays the least in an action would be able to set a cap on both sides’ legal fees, and added that it remained necessary for any use of injunctions to “stifle investigative reporting” to be “challenged.” He said instances like “the disgraceful Trafigura case” where a company, Trafigura, used an injunction to conceal the existence of a report into toxic waste dumping in the Ivory Coast, should not be used to attack the principle of injunctions. “It’s not right that the really important examples like this [Trafigura] should be used as a cover by unscrupulous tabloids to demand a blank cheque to write whatever they want about anyone’s private lives.” •
Continue reading …Tory MP says superinjunctions are an ‘overreaction’, but are inevitable given newspapers’ interest in celebrities’ private lives Zac Goldsmith, the influential backbench Conservative MP, responded to the growing ‘superinjuction’ crisis on Tuesday by calling for parliament to develop a privacy law – because some newspapers are unwilling “to distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is merely of prurient interest to some of the public”. The multimillionaire MP for Richmond Park also took the opportunity to speak about his own decision to take out a gagging order in 2008, as he sought to prevent the media from reporting that he, his sister Jemima Khan and his then wife Sheherazade had had their personal email accounts hacked. Despite that revealation, Goldsmith conceded that superinjunctions represented “an overreaction” on the part of wealthy celebrities and politicians, but said their existence was “an inevitable one” given repeated attempts by tabloids to write about people’s personal lives. Goldsmith, his former wife – whom he divorced in 2010 – and his sister all took out an injunction in December 2008 to prevent the publication of personal emails that that had been offered by an unnamed individual to a national newspaper. The court order was varied in March of this year to allow the identities of the three who had taken out the injunction to be made public. Describing his decision to go to law, the MP said: “The emails were private, and even the tabloids seemed to accept that there was no justification for publishing them.” However, Goldsmith agreed to allow his anonymity to be waived this year because “I do not want or need” it to maintained – before going onto to add that it was appropriate to keep the identity of the hacker secret because of the “person’s mental state”. High court judge Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled in March that the hacking of Goldsmith’s emails was “a flagrant breach of the law of confidence” but, “having regard to medical evidence” about the “fragile” individual who hacked into their accounts, agreed to keep that person’s identity secret. Reacting to that ruling, Goldsmith told the Guardian: “It is a perfect example of where a superinjunction is justified and right.” Possibly as a result of confusion relating to this case, Jemima Khan was separately – and wrongly – named as having taken out a gagging order to prevent “intimate photos” of herself and Jeremy Clarkson. Khan said the rumours were “untrue and upsetting” – although they remain in circulation on Twitter. Goldsmith said that he believed that the solution to the superinjunction problem was that “parliament should design proper privacy laws” so that “the media can do the job we want them to do, without fear, but that they don’t invade people’s privacy unless there’s good reason”. Noting that David Cameron had said earlier this month that we need to have “a discussion and a debate” about whether to introduce a privacy law, Goldsmith added: “The PM has said he wants parliament to take the initiative, and he’s right. I hope he follows through with it.” Goldsmith’s remarks come in a week in which some ministers were indicating their support for a privacy law. At least one senior minister is known to be in favour of legislation, but was sceptical about the prospect of getting it through parliament because of the storm that would be created around the issue. “I have always been in favour of a privacy law but see no prospect of getting one. It would take the lid off a Pandora’s box,” the minister said. A second minister, a Liberal Democrat, also indicated in private this week that they were open to the idea. However, Goldsmith conceded that it was a “grotesque flaw in the system” that only rich people could afford to pay the costs of an injunction – estimated at anywhere between £10,000 and £50,000 depending on the case. The MP said it would be fairer if the rules on costs could be changed so that the party who pays the least in an action would be able to set a cap on both sides’ legal fees, and added that it remained necessary for any use of injunctions to “stifle investigative reporting” to be “challenged.” He said instances like “the disgraceful Trafigura case” where a company, Trafigura, used an injunction to conceal the existence of a report into toxic waste dumping in the Ivory Coast, should not be used to attack the principle of injunctions. “It’s not right that the really important examples like this [Trafigura] should be used as a cover by unscrupulous tabloids to demand a blank cheque to write whatever they want about anyone’s private lives.” •
Continue reading …Tory MP says superinjunctions are an ‘overreaction’, but are inevitable given newspapers’ interest in celebrities’ private lives Zac Goldsmith, the influential backbench Conservative MP, responded to the growing ‘superinjuction’ crisis on Tuesday by calling for parliament to develop a privacy law – because some newspapers are unwilling “to distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is merely of prurient interest to some of the public”. The multimillionaire MP for Richmond Park also took the opportunity to speak about his own decision to take out a gagging order in 2008, as he sought to prevent the media from reporting that he, his sister Jemima Khan and his then wife Sheherazade had had their personal email accounts hacked. Despite that revealation, Goldsmith conceded that superinjunctions represented “an overreaction” on the part of wealthy celebrities and politicians, but said their existence was “an inevitable one” given repeated attempts by tabloids to write about people’s personal lives. Goldsmith, his former wife – whom he divorced in 2010 – and his sister all took out an injunction in December 2008 to prevent the publication of personal emails that that had been offered by an unnamed individual to a national newspaper. The court order was varied in March of this year to allow the identities of the three who had taken out the injunction to be made public. Describing his decision to go to law, the MP said: “The emails were private, and even the tabloids seemed to accept that there was no justification for publishing them.” However, Goldsmith agreed to allow his anonymity to be waived this year because “I do not want or need” it to maintained – before going onto to add that it was appropriate to keep the identity of the hacker secret because of the “person’s mental state”. High court judge Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled in March that the hacking of Goldsmith’s emails was “a flagrant breach of the law of confidence” but, “having regard to medical evidence” about the “fragile” individual who hacked into their accounts, agreed to keep that person’s identity secret. Reacting to that ruling, Goldsmith told the Guardian: “It is a perfect example of where a superinjunction is justified and right.” Possibly as a result of confusion relating to this case, Jemima Khan was separately – and wrongly – named as having taken out a gagging order to prevent “intimate photos” of herself and Jeremy Clarkson. Khan said the rumours were “untrue and upsetting” – although they remain in circulation on Twitter. Goldsmith said that he believed that the solution to the superinjunction problem was that “parliament should design proper privacy laws” so that “the media can do the job we want them to do, without fear, but that they don’t invade people’s privacy unless there’s good reason”. Noting that David Cameron had said earlier this month that we need to have “a discussion and a debate” about whether to introduce a privacy law, Goldsmith added: “The PM has said he wants parliament to take the initiative, and he’s right. I hope he follows through with it.” Goldsmith’s remarks come in a week in which some ministers were indicating their support for a privacy law. At least one senior minister is known to be in favour of legislation, but was sceptical about the prospect of getting it through parliament because of the storm that would be created around the issue. “I have always been in favour of a privacy law but see no prospect of getting one. It would take the lid off a Pandora’s box,” the minister said. A second minister, a Liberal Democrat, also indicated in private this week that they were open to the idea. However, Goldsmith conceded that it was a “grotesque flaw in the system” that only rich people could afford to pay the costs of an injunction – estimated at anywhere between £10,000 and £50,000 depending on the case. The MP said it would be fairer if the rules on costs could be changed so that the party who pays the least in an action would be able to set a cap on both sides’ legal fees, and added that it remained necessary for any use of injunctions to “stifle investigative reporting” to be “challenged.” He said instances like “the disgraceful Trafigura case” where a company, Trafigura, used an injunction to conceal the existence of a report into toxic waste dumping in the Ivory Coast, should not be used to attack the principle of injunctions. “It’s not right that the really important examples like this [Trafigura] should be used as a cover by unscrupulous tabloids to demand a blank cheque to write whatever they want about anyone’s private lives.” •
Continue reading …
According to its star Vin Diesel, the fifth in the franchise has more than enough people appeal to grab an Oscar With an aesthetic built on fast cars, scantily clad women and macho blokes in tight-fitting tops, the Fast and Furious series might not strike you as the most obvious candidate for awards season success. And yet Vin Diesel would beg to differ : the actor has told the LA Times he believes the latest instalment in the long-running franchise has a genuine shot at Oscar glory. Interviewed in the wake of Fast Five’s impressive $85m (£52m) US opening, the biggest for any film of the year so far, Diesel said he felt the latest entry in the series deserved some recognition come the Academy Awards next March. “I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some Oscar talk around this. I don’t know, maybe I’m just biting off what some guy from Channel 7 thought,” he said with a chuckle. “But sooner or later, people are gonna say, ‘Wait a minute, just because they are for the working class doesn’t mean they’re not great.’” Fast Five , which is directed once again by Justin Lin, has benefited from strong reviews for a fifth instalment. It features Diesel alongside series regulars Paul Walker and Jordana Brewster, plus newbie Dwayne Johnson. This time around Lin has introduced a heist movie element alongside the usual mélange of revving engines and testosterone-fuelled beefs. Action and adventure Oscars Awards and prizes Ben Child guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Communications regulator Ofcom wants to hear from consumers who have received ‘unexpectedly high’ mobile, landline or internet bills The UK communications regulator Ofcom wants to hear from consumers who have received an unexpectedly high mobile, landline or broadband bill in the past 12 months. Research from the regulator shows that 6% of UK consumers received an unexpectedly high mobile phone bill during the last year, with just under a fifth of those receiving a bill at least £100 more than expected. Regarding landlines, 5% of people received an unexpectedly high bill over the past 12 months, with 9% of those receiving a bill at least £100 more than expected. The average “bill shock” was between £31 and £50 for mobile phone services and between £21 and £30 for landlines. The top five common reasons for unexpectedly high mobile bills were: calls not included in the bundle (19%); calls made to 0845/0870 numbers (16%); customers exceeding their inclusive bundles (15%); international calls (15%); and using mobile phones abroad (6%). The top complaints about unexpectedly high landline bills also included calls to mobiles (11%) and incorrect charges. Existing Ofcom rules state that consumers must be provided with clear and transparent information about their contracts and bills, while European regulations limit charges when making calls or accessing the internet on a mobile phone while in Europe. But Ofcom said consumers are still facing bills for unexpected costs, and it will use consumer feedback to determine whether there is a need for further action either by the regulator or by communications providers. On average, Ofcom receives 450 telecoms complaints a day, and the largest areas of complaint are mis-selling, billing errors, lack of service and customer service problems. Ofcom recently announced that telecoms group TalkTalk was the most complained about provider of landline and broadband services between October 2010 and February 2011. The firm’s landline service had 1.78 complaints for every 1,000 customers, while its broadband offering had 1.27 complaints for every 1,000 customers. Consumers wishing to contact Ofcom should do so by June 14 2011 via its website or by email at unexpectedlyhighbills@ofcom.org.uk . Any consumers who have recently received an unexpectedly high bill can also access Ofcom advice here . Internet, phones & broadband Household bills Consumer affairs Ofcom Internet Mobile phones Telecoms Telecommunications industry Mark King guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The Michelin-starred chef shows Tim Hayward round the Gilbert Scott, named after the architect of the former London St Pancras station, now a five-star hotel Shehani Fernando Tim Hayward
Continue reading …The Michelin-starred chef shows Tim Hayward round the Gilbert Scott, named after the architect of the former London St Pancras station, now a five-star hotel Shehani Fernando Tim Hayward
Continue reading …
Community penalties and longer prison sentences of two to four years are more effective, Ministry of Justice research shows Offenders given community penalties have significantly lower reoffending rates than similar offenders who have served short prison sentences, according to Ministry of Justice research. The first authoritative analysis of the effectiveness of different sentences shows that longer prison sentences of two to four years – which allow time to tackle offending behaviour – are more effective than jail terms of under 12 months, during which inmates are simply warehoused. The findings will provide strong evidence to underpin legislation due next month from the justice secretary, Ken Clarke, to reform criminal sentencing and introduce a “rehabilitation revolution” to stablise the record prison population in England and Wales. David Cameron is reported to be preparing a speech on crime next month – similar to his intervention on immigration in April – amid anxieties in Downing Street that Clarke’s plans will be portrayed as being soft on crime, despite being financially essential. Clarke said the MoJ statistics showed reoffending in England and Wales to be unacceptably high and underlined the urgent need for steps to counter it. “It is a national scandal that nearly half of all offenders reoffend within a year of release,” he said. “Sentences must properly punish offenders as well as address the causes of their offending so that they are ready to go straight once their punishment has ended.” Clarke said both prison and non-custodial sentences needed to do much more to address the underlying causes of crime, such as drugs and mental illness. The MoJ research looked at the reoffending rates of “matched” samples of offenders given a range of sentences between 2005 and 2008. The reoffending rate was defined as those convicted or cautioned for at least one further offence in the 12 months after serving the sentence. The matched samples were identical in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, type of offence and number of previous convictions so that the effectiveness of each kind of sentence could be compared for the first time. The results show that those who had been on community sentences, including unpaid work and probation, in 2008 had a reoffending rate of 51%, compared with 59% for those on prison sentences of less than 12 months. The comparison between short prison sentences and suspended sentence orders is even more stark, with a gap of nearly nine percentage points. Those sentenced to between two and four years had a lower reoffending rate than those given prison sentences of less than 12 months, with a 4.4 percentage point gap for 2008. Iain Bell, the MoJ’s chief statistician, said the findings were not conclusive on whether the deterrent effect of longer prison sentences was more effective at reducing reoffending. “Offenders receiving sentences of less than 12 months do not have access to offender management programmes and are not subject to supervision by the probation service on release,” he said, adding that the data could not be used to reliably establish the impact of probation supervision and offender management programmes. Prisons and probation UK criminal justice Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• Former FA chair lifts lid on 2018 World Cup bid • Jack Warner said to have wanted £2.5m to build school Lord Triesman, the former Football Association and England 2018 chairman, has accused several Fifa executive committee members of “improper and unethical” behaviour. He told the select committee looking into football that the Fifa vice-president Jack Warner asked for money – suggested to be £2.5m – to build an education centre in Trinidad with the cash to be channelled through him, and later £500,000 to buy Haiti’s World Cup TV rights for the earthquake-hit nation, also to go through Warner. Paraguay’s Fifa member Nicols Léoz asked for a knighthood, he alleged, while Brazil’s Fifa member Ricardo Terra Teixeira asked Triesman to “come and tell me what you have got for me”, although Triesman said the comment could be open to interpretation. Thailand’s Fifa member Worawi Makudi wanted to be given the TV rights to a friendly between England and the Thai national team, said Triesman. He added: “These were some of the things that were put to me personally, sometimes in the presence of others, which in my view did not represent proper and ethical behaviour on the part of members of the executive committee.” Asked why he did not report the incidents to Fifa, Triesman said he feared that would damage the England bid but admitted he should have done so and pushed for action. “The point was not pressed,” he said. “And I think, in retrospect, we would have burned off our chances. “In retrospect that was not the right view to take and I accept that.” Lord Triesman World Cup 2018 Fifa Sport politics guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …