Click here to view this media Is there any end to the lengths that these folks will go to justify torture? Particularly Bill O’Reilly, who was puffed up like a blowfish with poison tentacles over Alan Colmes’ assertion that Rumsfeld is correct about the fact that information leading to Osama bin Laden did not emerge from “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In fact, BillO was so bent he just about came over the table at Alan Colmes, who wasn’t putting up with the nonsense even for a second. This question of how the information was obtained — by torture or standard techniques — is important for a number of reasons, and not simply because torture apologists want us to believe it’s an effective way to extract information. It’s important because it reveals the priorities and motives within the Bush administration at different times. In 2003, their focus was on Iraq, not Bin Laden. In 2007, they were still focused on Iraq. In Bush’s own words, Osama bin Laden was just someone he didn’t think about very often. So watch Bill O’Reilly go after Alan Colmes in this segment. This is actually round two — round one was right at the top of the show where Colmes tries to get a word in edgewise while BillO claims Rumsfeld’s statements on torture are just wrong. Plain wrong. After Crowley goes through some fairly boring and benign apologetics, BillO comes after Colmes with his fangs out. The pretzel twists are remarkable. Just remarkable. And really, they’re twisting themselves into a terrible corner. From Alan’s blog post on the timeline : Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was reportedly waterboarded 183 times, but that took place years before he was at Gitmo, and did not produce information leading to bin Laden’s demise. By the time the name of the courier’s name, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, was learned, it was 2007, and that was years after waterboarding and rendering to black sites had stopped . [A] administration official told reporters on Sunday that “for years, we were unable to identify his true name or his location.” It took until “four years ago” — 2007, then — for intelligence officials to learn al-Kuwaiti’s real name. By then, President Bush had ceased waterboarding and shuttered the black sites, moving the detainees within them, including Mohammed and al-Libbi, to Guantanamo Bay. In a Monday interview, Donald Rumsfeld said “normal” interrogation techniques were used at Gitmo on those detainees. If this timeline is correct — and there may be a lot of adjustment to it in the days and years to come — then that means waterboarding and other abusive techniques failed to get the name out of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libbi. A New York Times account has both men claiming not to know even the courier’s nom de guerre, which actually may have counted as a kind of confirmation by omission in this case. That says something about the limits of brute force in interrogation. In order to believe Peter King, one must believe that the Bush administration extracted the information from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in 2003 or so, when the waterboarding program was at its peak and then sat on it. Not only did they sit on it, but they shuttered the special group tasked with tracking Bin Laden’s whereabouts in 2007. So if one wants to go with Peter King and Bill O’Reilly, the Bush administration extracted information via torture and then sat on it, didn’t act, and didn’t follow through. Or, if one wants to believe Donald Rumsfeld, no information relevant to Bin Laden’s whereabouts was extracted until 2007, when it was done under accepted interrogation techniques, since the waterboarding programs were shut down by then. Transcript follows (There was a *lot* of crosstalk, so inaccuracies are possible): COLMES: Actually, it was false information they got through waterboarding. It was actually when they ran the names by this guy that he never heard of them — BILLO: Source that. COLMES: Source that? BILLO: Yes COLMES: New York Times story yesterday. They did not get — So in other words, we’re going to just discount it because you don’t like the New York Times. BILLO: So let’s go right to Attorney General Holder, who was asked this question based upon what The Factor reported last night. This morning, go. [video clip] HOLDER: There was a mosaic of sources that led to the identification of the people who led to– SENATOR (off-camera) I understand that, but were any pieces of that mosaic as the result of enhanced interrogation techniques? HOLDER: I do not know. [end clip] BILLO: Okay, so he doesn’t know. He doesn’t want to know, because then he’d have to say — COLMES: And you don’t believe the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. You don’t believe him. BILLO: I don’t. COLMES: Why not? BILLO: Because I have not questioned him. Breaking in here to say that this made me laugh hard and long, and not just because we’re talking about interrogation techniques. But imagine Bill O’Reilly making the claim with a straight face that Donald Rumsfeld isn’t truthful because he hasn’t questioned him personally. Would that be the same O’Reilly that eats out of Rumsfeld’s hand ? Or the Bill O’Reilly who tried to shred Scott McClellan with lies in order to bolster the Bush administration (including Rumsfeld?). Or perhaps the Bill O’Reilly who, when he had the opportunity in 2004 , threw softballs at Rumsfeld rather than dig at the truth of the Iraq travesty? Back to the action, which turned fairly hot and nasty fast: BILLO: If Rumsfeld wants to come on tomorrow night and sit there, I will question him. And when he says something, I will decide whether to believe it or not. I’m not going to take a second-rate secondary source on Rumsfeld. COLMES: Secondary source? Why would he be a secondary source? BILLO: Because he didn’t answer my direct questions. COLMES: Only if he talks to you is he a secondary source. BILLO: He didn’t talk to you either. You’re taking it from a secondary source. COLMES: So if anybody tells you something it’s okay, totally believable. BILLO: No, I’m checking it out. I checked King out, which King says is true. I’m not going to take a Rumsfeld from a secondary source from somebody like you (points at Colmes). [crosstalk] COLMES: Well you know that’s what Rumsfeld said. You know, this is an attempt on the part of people who want to burnish the reputation of a president who was a terrible president, had a terrible foreign policy — BILLO: It doesn’t have anything to do with him. It has — COLMES: — buttress up the Bush administration. That’s what you’re about. BILLO: Try to step out of your ideology — COLMES: This is not ideology. This is not ideology. BILLO: Of course it is. Your whole life is about ideology. COLMES: Oh come on, stop that. BILLO: This is about being Americans. That’s what it’s about. COLMES: It’s about trying to make Bush look good. You’ve got — BILLO: (Editorial comment: He is now shouting and snarling) I could care less about making Bush look good. This is about protecting people and you couldn’t care less about that because you’re an ideological zealot . COLMES: Bill, don’t call me that. Don’t say that to me. BILLO: It’s true. COLMES: It’s not true that I don’t care about it. This is absolutely an attempt to make Bush look good to try to justify — BILLO: That’s an insane statement and you’ve made a lot of them. COLMES: It’s another attempt to justify a terrible president with terrible foreign policy. Gotta hand it to Colmes. He managed to get his licks in and actually be heard while O’Reilly was blowing smoke, steam, and a steady stream of BS.
Continue reading …
The talk radio jocks have forgiven President Obama for his birth certificate, but they want to see Bin Laden’s death certificate It’s been a difficult week for patriotic Americans, some of whom remain torn between love of country and loathing for the man who leads it. Rush Limbaugh Rush Limbaugh surprised many of his critics by opening his radio show this week ( listen to clip ) offering unequivocal congratulations to President Obama for having actually done something extremely effective for a change by having had the good sense to have continued former President Bush’s antiterrorism policies – such as keeping “Club Gitmo” open, and more importantly, for making President Bush’s unfulfilled quest to capture and kill Osama bin Laden a top priority. Limbaugh also couldn’t help but admire the president for rejecting the military’s suggestion of bombing the Bin Laden compound in favour of a commando raid, even though the latter was the riskier choice. You see, the military wanted to go in there and bomb, like they always do. They wanted to go in there and drop missiles and launch bombs, a number of totally destructive techniques here. But President Obama, perhaps the only qualified member in the room to deal with this, insisted on the special forces. No one else thought of that. Not a single intelligence adviser, not a single national security adviser, not a single military adviser came up with the idea of using Seal Team 6 or any of the special forces. Our military wanted to go in there and just scorch the earth, leaving no evidence of anything after the mission. But President Obama singlehandedly understood what was at stake here. He alone understood the need to get DNA to prove the death. The precision with which the Navy Seals carried out the operation was very heartening to Limbaugh whose personal happiness seems to be closely tied to his country’s military might, but he did have some concerns about the quick burial at sea and whether or not the DNA evidence was conclusive. It’s a very uplifting thing to realise that such precision can still be accomplished in this country. Last night, I was as proud as I have been of the US military in I don’t know how long, and I remain so today. I toyed with the idea of opening the programme with military music. I felt so happy and proud about this. This was a 40-minute operation, get in, get it and get out. There are a lot of questions about it, burial at sea, the DNA supposedly takes a week to get, but we’ve got it already, the proof positive it was Osama bin Laden. It’s a very, very, very, very important and positive day for the US military. Limbaugh’s admiration for the armed forces is obviously genuine, but while not wanting to rain on their parade (let alone the commander-in-chief’s), diligent journalist that he is, he couldn’t help but raise another issue that has been floated in some mainstream media outlets and especially by Hillary Clinton’s news channel of choice, al-Jazeera, that Osama bin Laden is not the commander of al-Qaida anymore and that he has long since ceased to have much importance. He also felt compelled to draw attention to the stacks of newspaper articles that have suggested that Osama bin Laden was actually killed at Tora Bora and so has been dead for years, although Limbaugh doesn’t necessarily subscribe to this theory himself. Anyway, the bottom line is that, one way or another, it would appear that Osama bin Laden is probably dead now and even if President Obama and his administration had some hand in that, it’s still a great day for America. Laura Ingraham Laura Ingraham was positively furious ( listen to clip ) about all the furore surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden – not just because she feels a ridiculous amount of praise is being lavished on President Obama simply because he managed to carry out in just over two years what his predecessor George W Bush failed to carry out in eight, but because she feels that even if Bush had achieved his goal of capturing and killing public enemy No 1 during his administration, the media would still not have given him credit for it. What would they have said if it had been President Bush to announce the killing of Osama bin Laden? Would it have been – “Well, this was his moment, the strength that he demonstrated, the resolve, the steely resolve. This is a game-changer for George W Bush?” Well, I can confidently state none of this would have been said, had it been Bush making that speech last night! Ingraham believes that if it had been George Bush who had pulled off the successful raid on bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan after months of careful intelligence work, the media would have played down the achievement and focused instead on the other news that has now been knocked off the front pages, such as the muddled policy in Libya, Iran’s nuclear aspirations and the high unemployment and gas prices back home. She was also unimpressed by the decision to bury the world’s most dangerous terrorist’s body at sea within 24 hours of his death, because now we can never be absolutely sure if the Navy Seals actually got the right guy. And Ingraham is certainly not ready to take the president’s word on this. Where’s the picture? Is there anybody else out there wanting to see the picture of Bin Laden’s head? I do! I want the picture, I want the bullet hole. I want all of it. That doesn’t make me some kind of ghoul. I just want to see it. I want to see the photo. I want to know that the DNA matched. Why are we announcing this before the DNA match was done? Does anyone get that? That all seems just … do the DNA match and then just tell us we got the right guy. Ingraham might feel reassured if she was personally allowed to examine the photographic and DNA evidence, but as we saw with the birther issue, actual evidence can fail to convince the truly sceptical and as we all know, DNA samples and photographs can easily be doctored. Michael Savage Michael Savage was extraordinarily forthcoming this week ( listen to clip ) in his praise for the president who he has so often referred to as the most dangerous man in the country for having finally managed to kill the most dangerous man in the world. “Now some will ask, and I am not one of them, where is Osama’s death certificate, but we should take a collective deep breath and celebrate the US Navy Seals and tip our hat to the Obama administration for a job well done. He did something that Bush didn’t do, that Bush wanted to do that he said he would do and we have to give him credit for that and I’m very happy today frankly that the Hitler of our time is dead.” Savage went on to warn Republicans that they would be fools to have a go at Obama now because he managed to do, in a very effective way, what their lot failed miserably to do. Savage did have a few questions about the timing of the death announcement, however, and had his own theory, which he admitted was a little off the wall, that it might have been to distract attention from the royal wedding, to which the Obamas were not invited. He was also a little perturbed about the deference showed to Muslim tradition by burying the body within 24 hours. The man was an arch terrorist who has been hunting down Americans for 20 years. What does that have to do with Islam? Why should we respect his religious beliefs? I mean, there’s some who’ve argued he should have been chopped up and fed to pigs and the video released to the world! Anyway, aside from the burial issue and a few other minor gripes about the photograph being withheld and so forth, Savage insisted that it is a time to celebrate, not speculate, and even went so far as to admonish callers who were unable to overcome their hatred of the president long enough to simply acknowledge this one-off achievement. Now, that’s a true patriot. Osama bin Laden US television Talk radio Republicans George Bush Barack Obama US military US foreign policy Sadhbh Walshe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Up to 9,000 homes to be powered with energy produced by burning waste matter from the whisky-making process It is the spirit that powers the Scottish economy, and now whisky is to be used to create electricity for homes in a new bioenergy venture involving some of Scotland’s best-known distilleries. Contracts have recently been awarded for the construction of a biomass combined heat and power plant at Rothes in Speyside that by 2013 will use the by-products of the whisky-making process for energy production. Vast amounts of “draff”, the spent grains used in the distilling process, and pot ale, a residue from the copper stills, are produced by the whisky industry each year and are usually transported off-site. The Rothes project , a joint venture between Helius Energy and the Combination of Rothes Distillers (CoRD) will burn the draff with woodchips to generate enough electricity to supply 9,000 homes. It will be supplied by Aalborg Energie Technick , a danish engineering company. The pot ale will be made into a concentrated organic fertiliser and an animal feed for use by local farmers. Environmentalists have expressed concern that some of the wood used in the process may not be locally sourced, but say the 7.2MW project – the equivalent output of two large wind turbines – is a good scale and a valuable addition to Scotland’s renewables industry. Green energy has been a key issue in the run-up to Thursday’s Holyrood elections. The SNP leader, Alex Salmond, has pledged to produce 100% of Scotland’s electricity through renewable energy by 2020 , a claim dismissed as “fantasy” by Labour. The £50m Rothes project is the latest bioenergy venture from the Scotch whisky industry, but it is believed to be the first to provide electricity for public use. A bioenergy plant at Scotland’s largest distillery in Fife is close to completion. The project by Diageo will provide 98% of the thermal steam and 80% of the electrical power used at the Cameronbridge distillery. And last year, scientists at Napier University announced they had developed a method of producing biofuel from the by-products of the whisky distilling process which could power cars and even aircraft. The new fuel, they said, could be available at petrol pumps within a few years. Of Scotland’s 100 whisky distilleries, 50 are based in Speyside, and Frank Burns, general manager of CoRD, said it was an ideal location for the new bioenergy plant which will be built on an existing industrial site. “It is very well supported in the local community. Up here in Rothes and in Speyside in general we have a lot of strong links,” he said. “We had zero objections at the planning stage and we have done a lot of work within the community on the progress of the project.” Waste products from around 16 of the area’s 50 distilleries will be used at the site, including well-known brands such as Glenlivet, Chivas Regal, Macallan, and Famous Grouse. None will come from further than 25 miles away. Burns acknowledged, however, that some of the wood for the process may not be locally sourced. “Some of it will be local and some of it will be shipped in,” he said. “It is down to the supplier. They may source it locally.” Most of the fuel, he added, will be comprised of the draff. Sam Gardner, climate policy officer for WWF Scotland, said: “From the information we have, the project looks to be a very welcome addition to Scotland’s renewable industry. It is using waste products from our whisky industry which is eminently sensible thing to do, and is producing heat both for whisky production and for the local community. We would want to see assurances, however, that the biomass was sustainably sourced.” Biofuels Energy Renewable energy Whisky Food & drink Scotland Food & drink industry Kirsty Scott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Like TV and DVD before, Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox’s online releases can’t compete with the movie-going experience The news that two of Hollywood’s major studios, Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox, are planning to make new movies available online only two months after release is being heralded as a harbinger of doom for cinema. We’ve been through this scaremongering before, with the rise of television, video, DVD, on-demand rental companies such as Netflix and Lovefilm, as well as video iPods. Like the hounded heroine of a stalk’n’slash horror, cinema has throughout its history faced attempts on its life, and moments at which its number seemed to be well and truly up. Let’s get something straight: nothing can compete with cinema, and nothing ever will. Audience numbers and box-office takings will always fluctuate. But suggesting that downloading can ever provide an alternative to cinema is like saying that fast-food chains will kill off restaurants. The experiences are not comparable. It may take people a while to realise that – they may dip a toe in the studios’ on-demand scheme – but they will soon come to miss the largeness, the inclusivity and the sense of occasion that comes from going to the cinema. When you watch a film on a television or a laptop or, God forbid, an iPod, you haven’t seen it as it was intended. Sometimes it’s the only option available, especially with old or obscure movies now that the repertory scene is in permanent decline and the double bill has all but died out. But the idea that audiences for blockbusters are going to spurn the excitement of experiencing at maximum size, say, the latest Pirates of the Caribbean release, or whatever floats your schooner, is ridiculous. Most will know almost without realising it that there is no alternative to the communal, immersive alchemy of cinema-going. Nothing trumps it. None of which should suggest that cinemas themselves can afford to be complacent or exploitative. While cinema is a social experience, the chains owe it to the ticket-buying public to be more vigilant about those disruptive audience members for whom cinemas are merely alternative venues for mobile phone conversations. And pricing remains an issue. I haven’t given any of my custom to the Vue cinema chain for a year now, since it charged me £21 for myself and my 10-year-old daughter to see How to Train Your Dragon at 11am on a Sunday morning several months into the film’s release (we had even brought our own 3D glasses). There are similar complaints in the US. Joe Flint wrote on the subject on the LA Times website last year. His beef was with the pricing structure at Hollywood’s otherwise wonderful Arclight cinema, a classy venue that knocks any Vue into a cocked popcorn tub. Extortionate pricing, Flint says, “gives people just one more reason to stay home. At a time when theatre operators are worried about movies popping up sooner on DVD and video-on-demand and thereby undercutting ticket sales, making it costlier to go out to the local multiplex seems ill advised.” I think Flint is right up to a point – floating voters could be swayed if pricing continues to veer toward the prohibitive. But the shrinking of the window between cinema and on-demand release dates is a consequence of an entire society’s tendency towards instant gratification, rather than a knife in the back of one particular cultural experience. Besides, it isn’t just the integrity and authenticity of the films that we would lose in defecting to on-demand; it’s the memories that are bound up with them. When I think of my most cherished cinema-going experiences, they rarely revolve around favourite films so much as favourite audiences or atmospheres: the spontaneous wave of applause and cheering that broke out in a cinema in 1981 following the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark in which a tricksy swordfighter is dispatched with an off-the-cuff bullet; the police chasing a suspect through the auditorium where I was watching Wes Craven’s New Nightmare; the metronomic snap of seats that announced one walkout after another during The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover or David Cronenberg’s Crash, and seemed only to intensify the pleasure for those of us who stayed the course. Movie memories are made of this. They don’t tend to begin with the words: “Remember the time we downloaded that film …” Film industry Digital media Ryan Gilbey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Five academy schools in financial deficit received extra government funds last year, with one needing almost £5m A government quango spent almost £7m last year bailing out academy schools in financial deficit, official figures reveal. One academy – Richard Rose Central in Carlisle – needed a cash injection of nearly £5m. Four others – Gloucester, Manchester Enterprise, Paddington and Westminster academies – received between £850,000 and £250,000. State schools rely on local authorities to give them extra funds if they run into a serious shortfall. But academies operate outside of local authority control and so a quango – the Young People’s Learning Agency (YPLA) – gives them extra funds if they are in urgent need of them. Inspectors judged Richard Rose Central academy to be failing in 2009 and put it in special measures – an emergency category. The school came out of special measures this year and was deemed “satisfactory”. The academy was formed from a merger between two local schools – St Aidan’s county high school and North Cumbria technology college. Mike Gibbons, chief executive of the Richard Rose Federation, the umbrella organisation that covers the academy, said the school was “probably the most troubled in the country” before he took his post in February 2009. He said the merger had forced the school to move to a temporary site and that he had inherited “huge” financial problems. The school is now “doing well”, he said. Some £3.9m of the emergency funds have already been paid to the school, while just over an extra £1m are due. The YPLA’s total budget for academies in England is £1.9bn and it has up to £8m to award to academies in urgent financial need. A spokesman from the quango said many academies had taken over schools that were in “long-term educational and financial failure”. “Putting this legacy right will take time, often several years. During that period, the YPLA, on behalf of the Department for Education, works with academies to support them in their recovery.” He said academies were not allowed to run with regular deficits, unlike state schools under local authority control. The YPLA figures come after 23 councils in England filed a claim in the high court for a judicial review against the government in protest at funds that are being diverted from town halls to be used to expand academies. The government has reduced local authorities’ funds because councils no longer have control over as many schools as they used to. There are now 600 academies – three times as many as last May. But councils said that the cut of £148m has been calculated wrongly and that they will now have to deliver services to state schools with less money. The claim is expected to be heard by the summer. Academies Schools Education policy Local government Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Guardian/ICM survey shows further slump in support for electoral change in major setback for Nick Clegg Voters look set to deal a crushing blow to Nick Clegg by rejecting the alternative vote by a two to one majority, an end of campaign Guardian/ICM poll shows. The survey predicts a 68% no vote against just 32% for yesand, in line with other recent polls, suggests support for electoral change has slumped further since a Guardian/ICM poll last month revealed the growing size of the no lead. The lead then was 16 points, compared with 36 now. That suggests the campaign has been overwhelmingly lost by the Yes to AV alliance, which began the year with an apparent lead in the polls. In February, a Guardian/ICM poll put the yes camp ahead by two points. The latest poll, carried out by telephone and including a representative sample of voters in Northern Ireland, finds opposition to AV has grown among most types of voters. A majority of Labour supporters now say they will vote against AV despite Ed Miliband’s endorsement of change. So will almost nine in 10 Conservatives and more than a quarter of definite Lib Dem voters, whose lukewarm support seems confirmed by the fact that they are now less likely than Conservative or Labour voters to say they will turn out. Young voters remain in favour of AV, but are the least likely to be certain to vote. Among all voters, before adjustment for likely turnout, 28% said they were for change, with 52% against and 20% who said they didn’t know. After adjustment, among voters who say they are likely to vote, 32% back yes, down from 42% in April. Meanwhile 68% say no – up from 58%. The poll was carried out over Monday and Tuesday this week. The bank holiday made it more difficult to reach some voters, but figures for the state of the parties have been adjusted to take account of any imbalance in the sample. In a hypothetical immediate general election, Labour has 37%, unchanged from April. The Conservatives are on 36%, up one. The Liberal Democrats are on 15%, unchanged, and others on a combined 11%, down two. • ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1035 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 2-3rd May 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Alternative vote AV referendum Electoral reform Opinion polls Nick Clegg Ed Miliband David Cameron Liberal Democrats Conservatives Labour Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Hard-Left Radio Host Mike Malloy: When Will Navy SEALs Take Out Death-Dealing George W. Bush?
May 4, 2011 No Comment
If any American with a patriotic pulse listened to the Mike Malloy radio show, they would have been shocked on Monday night when Malloy outrageously suggested that Navy SEALs should have shot former president George W. Bush, and not Osama bin Laden. (MP3 audio clip here .) MIKE MALLOY: I have heard some commentators talk about the fact that, all the lives that have been lost in this war on terror, and now the summary execution of the person responsible. But as soon as I heard that, I thought, well, bin Laden really didn't have anything to do — did he? — with Iraq. And I think his only relationship with Afghanistan was geographical. But Iraq — all the death in Iraq was not caused by bin Laden. The death in Iraq was caused by George W. Bush. Five thousand Americans, tens of thousands permanently damaged and shot to pieces, a million Iraqis dead — that wasn't bin Laden. That was George Bush. S o when does Seal Unit 6, or whatever it's called, drop in on George Bush? Bush was responsible for a lot more death, innocent death, than bin Laden. Wasn't he, or am I wrong here? You're wrong here. Will the Secret Service be paying a visit to Malloy's studio for a little talk about inciting assassins? A million Iraqis dead? Where does that come from? It's not a body count, it's a mathematical guess. From Reuters in 2008: More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups. The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.
Continue reading …24-year-old was looking for shortcut to park when security door of Hilldesheim jail closed behind him A 24-year-old man who was looking for a shortcut to a nearby park became trapped in a women’s prison in central Germany on Monday. The unnamed man found himself shut inside the walls of Hilldesheim jail near Hannover after entering a metal door on the outside of the prison, only for it to close behind him. He was eventually rescued after a passing cyclist heard his cries for help. The town’s mayor, who also happened to be passing, called the police, but prison officials initially feared the two men were trying to help a prisoner escape – until one of them recognised the mayor and arranged for the “prisoner” to be freed. Officials at the prison mounted an investigation and discovered that one of three bolts in the door was loose, meaning that it had not closed properly. “The doors had recently been repaired and one of the bolts was wobbly. These things sometimes happen,” said Georg Wessling, spokesman for the ministry of justice in Lower Saxony. “The man wasn’t really locked into the jail,” said Wessling. “He just got into an internal courtyard which leads to two further secure prison walls. It’s the area visitors pass through, or prison officers when they start their shifts. There was no danger of him encountering any criminals – or of any criminals escaping. He was only in there for a matter of minutes.” The man told prison officials he had made a “blunder” while strolling to a local park, said Wessling. “He said he had been looking for a shortcut.” No crime had been committed, said Wessling. The prison wasn’t too embarrassed about the security breach, he insisted. “We see this more as something to laugh about than get angry over.” Germany Helen Pidd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Shares soar as company becomes one of first social networks to go public in US – despite it continuing to make a loss Renren, China’s answer to Facebook, raised $743m (£448m) with its eagerly awaited flotation on the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday, as shares in the social network rocketed in early trading. Investors scrambled to bet huge sums on the Chinese social media giant, set at $14 a share for its market debut – about 50% higher than the expected price range posted last week. The company’s share price had settled at just under $19 a share by 4pm London time, about 35% up on its opening level. Renren becomes the latest Chinese internet giant to make its debut on the New York Stock Exchange, capitalising on investor clamour for the new generation of internet companies. Recent flotations from China’s booming internet market include the online video company Youku and the dating website Jiayuan. The loss-making social network, which has about 5 million monthly users, sold 53.1m US depositary shares for $14 each, raising $743.3m, according to its underwriters. Renren chief executive, Joseph Chen, vowed to report a profit “definitely very soon”. Chen added: “I believe this will enhance our brand and further validate our position as the leading real-name social networking internet platform in China. This listing brings us an important step closer to realising our vision to define social networking experience and to revolutionise the way that people in China connect, communicate, entertain and shop.” Renren posted a net loss of $64.2m last year, down from $70.1m in 2009. The company reported revenues of $76.5m last year. Renren’s largest backer is Japan’s SoftBank, which owns a 40% stake. Investor demand for the site proved strong despite concerns over its prospectus, its internal financial structure, and government influence over the Chinese internet market. Renren’s already-delayed initial public offering was thrown into question on Tuesday as Derek Palaschuk, a board member who heads the company’s audit committee, resigned over allegations of fraud against a separate company – Longtop Financial Technologies – of which he is chief financial officer. The six-year-old company also revised its prospectus to potential investors after observers pointed out potential inaccuracies with its user figures. Initially, Renren said its user base had grown 29% in the first quarter of this year. It later revised that figure to 19%. Renren is one of the first social networking companies to float on the New York Stock Exchange, just five months after the popular social network for business professionals, LinkedIn, declared its intention to go public. Facebook, the world’s most popular social network which has attracted a $70bn valuation, is expected to go public next year, with fellow social media sites Twitter and Zynga expected to follow suit. Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse were lead underwriters on Renren’s IPO. •
Continue reading …
Babar Ahmad, accused of raising funds for al-Qaida, was allegedly assaulted by Met officers in south-west London in 2003 A British Muslim man accused of raising funds for terrorist organisations was subjected to a “sustained and very violent assault” during his arrest by four specialist officers from the Metropolitan police, a court has heard. The jury at Southwark crown court was told the officers punched, kicked and stamped on Babar Ahmad, during an early morning raid at his home in south-west London in 2003. At one stage, the court heard, Ahmad, who was accused of raising money for al-Qaida, was forced into the Muslim prayer position as an officer shouted: “Where is your God now?” Prosecuting counsel Jonathan Laidlaw QC told the jury: “The officers began to shout and swear, calling Babar Ahmad a ‘fucking bastard’ and a ‘fucking cunt’, and he was punched and beaten on the floor. On the floor the assault continued as his wife called out for the police to stop.” The assault had continued in the back of a police van where Ahmad was forced on to the floor and punched and kicked. Laidlaw said: “The officer sitting nearest to Mr Ahmad’s head asked him where he was born and when he replied London, that officer punched him in the back of the head. The same officer then lifted Mr Ahmad’s upper body and held him in a headlock with both arms. After releasing him [the officer] said: ‘You fucking cunt, you’ll remember this day for the rest of your life.’ ” Laidlaw said the attack left Ahmad with a series of injuries. “There were areas of bruising, reddening and grazes to Ahmad’s head and neck, bruising to the chest, areas of bruising to Ahmad’s back, extensive bruising and grazing of the arms. In effect, there were injuries all over the victim’s body.” Police constables Mark Jones, Roderick James-Bowen and Nigel Cowley and Detective Constable John Donohue all deny assaulting Ahmad in December 2003. Jurors heard Ahmad was asleep in bed with his wife when he was woken by cries of “police, police” shortly after 5am. Laidlaw said officers raiding the property would have been briefed that the suspect had received terrorist training and had fought overseas in support of jihad. He said the arrest took place a few months after another terror suspect, Kamel Bourgass, stabbed an anti-terror squad officer to death during a raid on a house in Manchester. But the prosecutor said that, despite fears Ahmad might present a danger to arresting officers, the reality was quite different. “Dressed only in his pyjamas and barefooted, Mr Ahmad raised his arms above his head to indicate that he was not going to fight or to present any sort of danger or threat to the police,” he said. The court heard that James-Bowen, the first officer into the bedroom, threw himself at Ahmad, knocking him back against the window, which smashed. Laidlaw said there was “no complaint” about this but that the officers then violently assaulted the “entirely submissive” Ahmad. He was handcuffed and led downstairs to the prayer room in his house. It was here that he was put in the prayer position and asked: “Where is your God now?”, jurors were told. “The mocking of Mr Ahmad’s faith was to continue, and there were, as you will hear, further attempts to humiliate and to embarrass him,” Laidlaw said. The court was told that as part of its investigation into Ahmad’s alleged terrorist connections MI5 had bugged the house. The jury was played a 10-minute recording that covered the time of Ahmad’s arrest. Although largely indecipherable it was possible to hear screaming, shouting and what appeared to be muffled commands. Ahmad was taken to Charing Cross police station where he says he was led to a caged area not covered by CCTV and again punched and kicked. Laidlaw said the custody sergeant reported hearing his screams. “[The custody sergeant] describes the screams this way: ‘I would describe the screaming as what I believed was a man and that he was in prolonged discomfort and pain. It was definitely the sound of pain and not of him shouting out.’ ” The custody officer said Ahmad was bloodied and bruised and in “a collapsing state” when he was brought in by the territorial support group officers, who claimed he had been violent. Ahmad was released without charge shortly after his arrest. But the jury was told he has been in custody in the UK since his rearrest in 2004 following a request from the US over claims he helped raise money to fund terrorism. The hearing continues. Police London UK security and terrorism Crime Islam Religion Matthew Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …