Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1216)
Tomlinson unlawfully killed, inquest rules, and officer could face charge

Decision not to prosecute PC Simon Harwood under review after inquest rules that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed The police officer who attacked Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in London in 2009 could be prosecuted for manslaughter after an inquest jury ruled that the newspaper seller was unlawfully killed. Returning their verdict after three hours of deliberation, jurors said Tomlinson died of internal bleeding in the abdomen after being struck with a baton and pushed to the ground by a police officer. For legal reasons, the verdict did not name the officer, Metropolitan police constable Simon Harwood. However, the jury said that “excessive and unreasonable” force was used when he struck the newspaper vendor who “posed no threat”. The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, immediately said he would “review” his decision last July not year not to prosecute Harwood. There were shouts of “yes” from Tomlinson’s family when the jury confirmed their belief that the 47-year-old father of nine was unlawfully killed. The family’s lawyer, Jules Carey, said : “Today’s decision is a huge relief to Mr Tomlinson’s family. To many, today’s verdict will seem like a statement of the blindingly obvious. However, this fails to take account of the significant and many obstacles faced by the family over the last two years to get to this decision.” Police initially denied Tomlinson had contact with police officers before his death on 1 April 2009. The Independent Police Complaints Commission only launched a criminal inquiry a week later, after the Guardian released video footage showing Tomlinson being struck from behind by Harwood near the Royal Exchange Buildings. The footage was played repeatedly during the five-week hearing at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London. Jurors were given two divergent explanations of his death. The first pathologist to conduct a postmortem examination on Tomlinson, Dr Freddy Patel, said he died of a heart attack as a result of coronary heart disease. He was contradicted by three other pathologists who examined the body, all of whom found he died of internal bleeding in the abdomen. Starmer said last July that complications with the medical evidence led him to believe prosecutors would be unlikely to prove a cause of death. His decision, which was backed by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, prompted widespread anger and questions in parliament. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, said he could understand the “outrage” over the decision not to prosecute Harwood. Jurors at the inquest were told they could only decide Tomlinson was unlawfully killed if they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt, the same burden of proof which would apply in a criminal trial. The Crown Prosecution Service will now also consider new medical evidence given to the inquest by Professor Kevin Channer, a heart expert who contradicted the theory that Tomlinson died of a heart attack. He said defibrillator readings of Tomlinson’s heart activity obtained moments after his collapse were “entirely inconsistent” with Patel’s explanation of his death. Tomlinson had been trying to walk home from work through the demonstrations near the Bank of England on the evening he died. An alcoholic, he had been drinking heavily and was looking vacant and confused as he was repeatedly turned away from police cordons. At 7.20pm, he stumbled on to Royal Exchange Buildings, a passage police had been ordered to clear. Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and was walking away from police when he was struck with a baton and pushed from behind by Harwood. During three days of evidence at the inquest, Harwood, 43, told jurors that he believed at the time that Tomlinson was obstructing police and he believed his actions were proportionate. Harwood will face a Metropolitan police gross misconduct hearing at which he stands accused of “inadvertently causing or contributing to” Tomlinson’s death. If found guilty by the disciplinary panel, Harwood, who is currently suspended on full pay, would almost certainly be sacked. The verdict brings to an end a two-year wait for Tomlinson’s family, who maintain police attempted to cover up officers’ involvement in his death. Ian Tomlinson Metropolitan police Police London G20 Protest Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Was he really responsible for bombing the Twin Towers?

CIA project? Drug runner? Arsenal fan? Debunking the myths surrounding al-Qaida’s leader 1. Osama bin Laden was ‘created’ by the CIA He did not receive any direct funding or training from the US during the 1980s. Nor did his followers. The Afghan mujahideen, via Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency, received large amounts of both. Some bled to the Arabs fighting the Soviets but nothing significant. 2. He had a huge personal fortune Bin Laden was forced to leave any cash he had when he in effect fled Saudi Arabia in 1991 for Pakistan and then Sudan. His family cut him off. Nor would the inheritance from his hugely wealthy father have been divided into equal parts anyway. What Bin Laden did have was contacts, which allowed him to raise money with ease. 3. He was responsible for 1993 bombing of World Trade Centre Ramzi Yousef, who was the main perpetrator of the attack, was probably working for Khaled Sheikh Mohammed who was an independent operator at the time. Mohammed only started working with al-Qaida in 1996 and even then kept his distance from Bin Laden. 4. He got money from drug running No evidence for this whatsoever despite repeated claims – such as in the post 9/11 British government dossier on al-Qaida. 5. He never exposed himself to any danger He did not single-handedly seize a short-barrelled AK-47 from a dying Soviet general as he sometimes claimed but numerous witnesses report that he was in the thick of fighting in Jaji in 1987 and again at the battle of Jalalabad in 1989. 6. He spent a lot of time in caves In the late 1990s, for propaganda purposes, Bin Laden invited select journalists to meet him in caves near Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan. However he lived in a much more comfortable compound a short drive away, near the former Soviet collective farm of Hadda owned by a local warlord. By 1999 he had moved to a complex of houses near Kandahar. When he was killed, he was living in a relatively comfortable detached house in Abbottabad, Pakistan. In between, there is no evidence that he spent any time living in caves. The rest of al-Qaida’s senior militants appear to have lived in the semi-fortified houses that are common in the tribal zones. 7. He was a tearaway teenager who partied in Beirut before becoming religious. There is no evidence for this either. Bin Laden appears to have been an intense, shy and pious youth who married young and spent an inordinate amount of time studying scripture. 8. He was near to dying of a kidney disease. There are some reports – not least in the Guantánamo files – of renal problems but certainly not serious enough to kill him. It is more likely he had back problems caused by his height (around 6ft 5in) and relatively sedentary lifestyle. 9. He hid in Kashmir, was the leader of Chechen groups, was responsible for violence in the Philippines and in Indonesia, organised the Madrid 2004 attack and had an extensive network in Paraguay, sub-Saharan Africa and South Africa. All these claims, made by various governments or intelligence services over the last decade have proved totally without foundation. 10. Bin Laden was an Arsenal fan Despite fans reportedly chanting “Osama, woah-woah, Osama, woah-waoh, he’s hiding in Kabul, he loves the Arsenal”, Bin Laden was not a faithful of the north London club. Osama bin Laden al-Qaida Global terrorism Jason Burke guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Obama advisor: Waterboarding didn’t lead to bin Laden kill

Click here to view this media White House deputy national security advisor John Brennan Tuesday knocked down the myth that waterboarding provided crucial intelligence that led to the location of Osama bin Laden. “So we’ve been talking about the different details and methods that lead up to this moment, and obviously there is word out today that waterboarding played a very big role or role in actually getting the information,” MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski told Brennan. “Is that the case?” “Not to my knowledge,” Brennan explained. “The information that was acquired over the course of nine years or so came from many different sources, human sources, technical sources, as well as information that detainees provided, and it was something that as a result of the painstaking work that the analysts did, they pieced it all together that led us to the Abbottabad compound and led us to the successful operation on sunday,” he added. Fox News’ Fox Nation website claimed Tuesday that waterboarding led to the death of bin Laden.

Continue reading …
Dewani ‘would be a target in SA jail’

Lawyers for groom accused of honeymoon murder would be ‘vulnerable’ in jails rife with HIV, TB and rape, hearing told The British businessman accused of arranging for his new wife to be murdered while they were on honeymoon in South Africa would be “very vulnerable” to gang-related sexual violence if extradited and then imprisoned, a court heard. Shrien Dewani’s good looks, and the fact that a woman was his alleged victim, would make him a target of gangs if he were sent back to South Africa and jailed, his extradition hearing in London was told. Westminster magistrates also heard a claim from the South African authorities who said that before marrying Dewani allegedly told an acquaintance he needed to end the relationship but would be disowned by his family if he broke off his engagement. South African lawyers want Dewani, 31, from Bristol, to be extradited to face trial for allegedly plotting to have his wife, Anni Hindocha, 28, killed in a staged car-jacking in a township near Cape Town. Dewani’s legal team says he has severe post-traumatic stress disorder, prompted by the death, and that his human rights would be violated if he were sent into a prison system that did not protect him. Two experts on South African jails were called, by Dewani’s side, to give evidence via video-link about the conditions he would face. They told the court some prisons were overcrowded, understaffed and rife with diseases, including TB and HIV/Aids. There was a shortage of medical staff and sick prisoners sometimes struggled to get access to the care and medicine they needed. Gangs used rape and sexual abuse as a punishment and to establish hierarchy. Asked about the risk of sexual abuse, one of the experts, Sasha Gear, said Dewani lacked the street credentials to win the respect of other inmates. His good looks and an alleged crime seen as “less manly” would also put him at risk. She added that allegations of homosexuality associated with Dewani would be an additional problem. At the opening of the hearing, Hugo Keith QC, for the South African authorities, said an unnamed witness claimed that Dewani had expressed concern about his relationship. “[Dewani] said although [Anni] was a nice, lovely girl, who he liked, he could not break out of the engagement because he would be disowned by his family. He [told] the witness he needed to find a way out of it.” It is the first time the South African authorities have suggested any motive for the part they allege Dewani played in the killing, which happened in November last year. The witness is not going to give evidence at the extradition hearing but would be prepared to testify if Dewani were put on trial in South Africa. Dewani’s friends and family, who maintain the marriage was not arranged and that the couple were genuinely in love, insist Dewani had nothing to do with her death. Dewani is wanted for offences of kidnapping, robbery with aggravated circumstances, conspiracy to commit murder, and obstructing the administration of justice. Keith alleged Dewani had hatched the plot to have his wife killed with the taxi driver who collected them at Cape Town airport. Next day as they drove through a township, the taxi was stopped by two gunmen. The taxi driver and Dewani were let out but Anni was driven away. Her body was found next day with a single gunshot wound to the neck. As the hearing was opened, Dewani, who is being treated at a mental health hospital, sat slumped in the dock, mumbling to himself with his eyes half closed. He was later excused by the judge and allowed to return to hospital. The hearing continues. Dewani murder case South Africa Crime Steven Morris guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

This is good news. The longer they can stretch this out, the less leverage the Republicans will have: Treasury Department officials said Monday that they will begin to take extraordinary actions Friday to manage the government’s finances so the U.S. won’t default after hitting its borrowing limit on May 16. The moves come amid divisions among congressional leaders over how to raise the $14.29 trillion debt limit and avoid a default that Treasury officials say could cause another financial crisis. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told lawmakers last month that the U.S. would hit the debt ceiling by May 16 and could default as soon as July 8. Officials now estimate that the actions announced Monday, combined with stronger-than-expected tax receipts, will enable the government to postpone a possible default until Aug. 2. But the longer Congress delays raising the debt ceiling, the greater the risk that markets will fall due to fears that the government won’t meet its financial obligations. In the first emergency step, Treasury on Friday will stop issuing state and local government series securities, commonly known as SLGS. That could make it harder for states and cities to issue debt, because they will have to seek issuers in the private market. If the debt limit hasn’t been raised by May 16, the government will begin delaying payments into two government pension funds and redeeming Treasury securities in those funds. It also will suspend its daily investment of Treasury securities into another government employees’ retirement plan. In addition, Treasury officials are prepared to suspend their daily reinvestment of Treasury securities held as investments in the Exchange Stabilization Fund, a fund held by the government to guard against exchange-rate fluctuations .

Continue reading …
Cowell unveils £1m-prize gameshow

• ‘High concept’ new series to be fronted by Ant and Dec • The X Factor’s US judges to be confirmed by end of week Simon Cowell has taken time out from the launch of The X Factor in the US to unveil his latest ITV1 production – a gameshow in which contestants will be able to win £1m on the spin of a wheel. Red or Black will be fronted by Anthony McPartlin and Declan Donnelly and broadcast live over the course of seven consecutive nights later this year on ITV1. It has the £1m prize in common with another ITV1 show, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?. But unlike its 13-year-old predecessor, contestants won’t have to know anything to win it. “No talent is involved,” said Donnelly. “If your luck holds out 10 times in a row you will win a million.” Cowell said the idea for the show was first mooted 10 years ago and he was immediately attracted to it. “A lot of shows I see are quite boring to watch. “I like the fact we are doing something that is high concept. Thank goodness ITV gives us the budget to do something big and put their money where their mouth is,” he added. “Every single night someone is going to have to make that decision [between red or black]. We have only seen that a few times on TV.” Like Cowell’s other ITV1 shows, The X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent, Red or Black will be filmed in an arena – in this case, Wembley Arena – with viewers following contestants’ journies from the early rounds to the final spin of the wheel. Some 7,000 contestants will initially take part, whittled down by a series of 50/50 challenges in which they will have to predict an outcome. Not all the challenges will be as straightforward as spinning a wheel – others will include cars dropping out of aeroplanes, people strapped to rockets, and giant, arena-sized pinball machines, many of them featuring big name guests. However, acutely aware of the restrictions on gambling in television programmes, Cowell preferred to say “risk their luck” rather than gamble when describing how the show works. “It’s not gambling because people are not using their own cash,” he added. Cowell said he hoped to take Red or Black “around the world”. “I hope if it succeeds it will travel. I have had interest from America already.” The programme will be co-produced by Cowell’s Syco TV and ITV Studios. The ITV director of entertainment and comedy, Elaine Bedell, said it would be “one of the biggest TV events on ITV this year”. She added that Cowell had rung her with the idea. “This being Simon this was at 1.30am, but even then it was quite a compelling idea.” ITV will launch its appeal for Red or Black contestants on ITV1 tonight. Viewers have until 13 May to apply. Cowell also said the judges lineup on the US version of The X Factor – the source of endless speculation over whether Cheryl Cole will join him on the show – would be confirmed by the end of the week. He also revealed there would be changes to the format of the semi-final and final of The X Factor in the UK, prompting speculation that it may move to Wembley Arena. Cowell refused to confirm details except to say it would be “very, very exciting”. •

Continue reading …
Memo to The Donald: President Obama Really Did Have Better Things To Do

enlarge [h/t Oliver Willis ] According to Brennan, they were able to watch the entire operation in real time. The expressions on their faces tell the story, don’t they?

Continue reading …
Can I quit without hurting others?

• How can I leave my charity job without letting everyone down? • Lack of training leaves me struggling in my new technical role At the start of each week, we publish the problems that will feature in this Saturday’s Dear Jeremy advice column in the Guardian Work supplement, so readers can offer their own advice and suggestions. We then print the best of your comments alongside Jeremy’s own insights. Here are this week’s dilemmas – what are your thoughts? Problem one: How can I leave my charity job without letting everyone down? I work for a small charity/membership organisation that is in turmoil, particularly as several managers have left and not yet been replaced. I am doing extra work for which I am not being paid, and am thinking about leaving for something else (although what that might be is a whole other question). Working has made me increasingly unhappy, to the point where I have had to go to the doctor for advice on depression. My question is, in a small organisation, where you know that your leaving will cause more work for others, is there any way to minimise this, particularly with a lack of leadership? I am desperate for a way out but feel tied by not wanting to let the rest of the staff down by going. Problem two: Lack of training leaves me struggling in my new role I recently changed jobs, moving departments within the company into a computer programming role. I’ve always wanted to do this and was really excited when I started. I am well suited to the work and have an academic background, so I wasn’t expecting to find the transition too difficult. However, since joining a year ago I have received no training since my initial three-day induction. The computer language used in my job is outdated and there is only one book available about it, which was written for experienced programmers. I have struggled since day one to do the work by asking other members of the team to teach me. They are all under pressure as they are overworked and have not really got time to help. Also I am quite shy and it makes me feel uncomfortable to put pressure on the other members of the team, who not all keen to help either. I have since discovered that this also happened to the previous two people who joined the team. I am finding it extremely stressful and often go home in tears. I have continually brought it to my manager’s notice that I am finding it very difficult to contribute to the team, and have asked for more training only to be told it’s too expensive and “not considered necessary”. At my first review (after six months) I was told I was progressing as expected and that it just takes time and not to worry. I have just had my second review where I was told I hadn’t progressed at all since my last review and so my pay has been frozen. I am baffled by this and demoralised. When I manage to complete some of the work I really enjoy it, but it’s so important to me to be good at my job that I am feeling a failure. Should I just accept that this isn’t the job for me? I can’t afford to start again from the bottom somewhere else but I really don’t want to go back to my old job. What are your thoughts? • For Jeremy’s and readers’ advice on a work issue, send a brief email to dear.jeremy@guardian.co.uk . Please note that he is unable to answer questions of a legal nature or reply personally Work & careers Graham Snowdon guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Can I quit without hurting others?

• How can I leave my charity job without letting everyone down? • Lack of training leaves me struggling in my new technical role At the start of each week, we publish the problems that will feature in this Saturday’s Dear Jeremy advice column in the Guardian Work supplement, so readers can offer their own advice and suggestions. We then print the best of your comments alongside Jeremy’s own insights. Here are this week’s dilemmas – what are your thoughts? Problem one: How can I leave my charity job without letting everyone down? I work for a small charity/membership organisation that is in turmoil, particularly as several managers have left and not yet been replaced. I am doing extra work for which I am not being paid, and am thinking about leaving for something else (although what that might be is a whole other question). Working has made me increasingly unhappy, to the point where I have had to go to the doctor for advice on depression. My question is, in a small organisation, where you know that your leaving will cause more work for others, is there any way to minimise this, particularly with a lack of leadership? I am desperate for a way out but feel tied by not wanting to let the rest of the staff down by going. Problem two: Lack of training leaves me struggling in my new role I recently changed jobs, moving departments within the company into a computer programming role. I’ve always wanted to do this and was really excited when I started. I am well suited to the work and have an academic background, so I wasn’t expecting to find the transition too difficult. However, since joining a year ago I have received no training since my initial three-day induction. The computer language used in my job is outdated and there is only one book available about it, which was written for experienced programmers. I have struggled since day one to do the work by asking other members of the team to teach me. They are all under pressure as they are overworked and have not really got time to help. Also I am quite shy and it makes me feel uncomfortable to put pressure on the other members of the team, who not all keen to help either. I have since discovered that this also happened to the previous two people who joined the team. I am finding it extremely stressful and often go home in tears. I have continually brought it to my manager’s notice that I am finding it very difficult to contribute to the team, and have asked for more training only to be told it’s too expensive and “not considered necessary”. At my first review (after six months) I was told I was progressing as expected and that it just takes time and not to worry. I have just had my second review where I was told I hadn’t progressed at all since my last review and so my pay has been frozen. I am baffled by this and demoralised. When I manage to complete some of the work I really enjoy it, but it’s so important to me to be good at my job that I am feeling a failure. Should I just accept that this isn’t the job for me? I can’t afford to start again from the bottom somewhere else but I really don’t want to go back to my old job. What are your thoughts? • For Jeremy’s and readers’ advice on a work issue, send a brief email to dear.jeremy@guardian.co.uk . Please note that he is unable to answer questions of a legal nature or reply personally Work & careers Graham Snowdon guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Canada’s new political landscape

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives won a majority, but the historic losses of the Liberals and Bloc Québécois are more startling For all its faults (and I’m in favour of electoral reform, for what it’s worth), at least you think you know where you stand with the first past the post system. You get majority governments, with the executive dominating the legislature, and stable (or stagnant) two-party systems, concentrating power overwhelmingly in the hands of the few. But just as the UK prepares for a referendum on our electoral system this week, Canada’s elections Monday – in which Stephen Harper’s Conservatives gained a majority , and the official opposition party changed from the Liberals to the New Democratic party – shows perhaps more than ever the surprises this system can still throw up when traditional voting patterns shift. Stephen Harper’s Conservative rule up until this point was already something of an anomaly, with his previous terms in office under a minority government. In retrospect, it’s astonishing that Harper dominated the political landscape through much of the 2000s despite the fact that the Conservative party hadn’t won a majority since 1988. In March, when the government was found to be in contempt of parliament – another precedent in the Commonwealth parliamentary system – Harper’s government fell, forcing the 2 May elections . The results of the election now give him four years of full-blown Conservative rule, a fact that hasn’t been welcomed by those who see him as Canada’s George Bush: Naomi Klein tweeted that a “hair-raising shock doctrine is coming our way”, as Harper now has the mandate to pursue his cuts to welfare provision and what many see as his support of environmental destruction (bear in mind that one of Harper’s milder actions on the environment was to dismiss the Kyoto protocol a “socialist scheme” . But as Harper assumes office as the leader of a majority government, the composition of the parliament looks almost unrecognisable. Not only have the Liberals lost their position as the main party of opposition, but the party leader, the once seemingly indomitable Michael Ignatieff lost his own seat in what’s being described as an ‘historical collapse’ of the Liberals, previously one of Canada’s two main parties. In a strange parallel to this collapse of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe is resigning after losing his own riding , while the Bloc Québécois’ support has imploded to the point where it is hard to image the Québec sovereignty movement resurfacing as a national issue (can you be a “bloc” when you only have four seats in parliament?). This unprecedented shift in voting patterns is largely due to the ascendancy of the New Democratic party. The rise of “Jack Mania” – at least, in Québec – for the NDP’s leader Jack Layton could be seen in some ways as Canada’s 2011 “I agree with Nick” moment: the Conservatives focused most of their campaigning energies on attacking the Liberals and Ignatieff , with the NDP poised to position themselves as the new viable alternative to the Conservatives, as well as sweeping up protest votes to the Bloc Quebecois . One of the key points of the Conservative campaign to finally secure a majority was built on the premise that another Conservative minority government – which looked possible in the early stages of the campaign – would create a cumbersome coalition of opposition parties . This doesn’t sound much like the rhetoric used in first past the post system election campaigns: citing the spectre of unwieldy coalitions to implore the voters to – this time round, please – elect a majority government. Perhaps the most optimistic parallel between last year’s UK election and the sudden reshaping of Canada’s political landscape this week is the rise of Elizabeth May, who has just become the first Green MP to be elected to Canadian parliament – and who, like Caroline Lucas, was not invited to the televised campaign debate . May’s voice will be sorely needed in opposition to Harper’s conservative vision, and her victory, like Caroline Lucas’s, was a triumph over the first past the post system under which parties like the Green party lose out. Although the UK’s 2010 election and Canada’s 2011 election produced vastly different outcomes – one a period of coalition government, the other ending a of minority government rule – the two elections show that first past the post doesn’t ensure a stable two-party system; actual votes still bend the structure in dynamic ways. On his day of legitimate victory under Canada’s electoral system, perhaps Harper would prefer it if we didn’t notice that one of the interesting parallels is that, for most of his rule so far, Harper’s Conservative party, like David Cameron’s Conservative party now, didn’t have a majority. In any case, now Harper finally has his majority, the image of Canada as America’s liberal, progressive neighbour might – like Ignatieff and the Bloc Québécois – also suddenly drop off the political radar. Canada Stephen Harper Michael Ignatieff United States Liberal-Conservative coalition David Cameron Nick Clegg Electoral reform First past the post AV referendum Heather McRobie guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …