Robin Garbutt bludgeoned wife Diana with metal bar as she slept before pretending armed robber had struck A shopkeeper who bludgeoned his postmistress wife to death as she slept then blamed an armed robber has been convicted of her murder. Robin Garbutt, 45, knew his wife Diana had been unfaithful and feared his theft of thousands of pounds from the post office they ran in Melsonby, North Yorkshire, was about to be discovered. A jury at Teesside crown court rejected his story that a man with a gun told him: “Don’t do anything stupid, we’ve got your wife”, before robbing him as he worked in the shop, and that moments later he discovered her lifeless body in bed. Garbutt shook his head as he was convicted by the jury of eight men and four women by a majority of 10 to two.The panel had been deliberating for 12 hours and 50 minutes. His sister collapsed in tears as the verdict was announced. Diana Garbutt’s mother, Agnes Gaylor, also wept. Mr Justice Openshaw was expected to sentence Garbutt on Tuesday. Garbutt hit his wife three times over the head with a metal bar while she slept in the living quarters above the Melsonby village shop and post office in the early hours of 23 March last year. He later opened the shop as normal, served about 60 customers, then closed it again. He dialled 999 and claimed his wife had been attacked, crying hysterically on the phone, then when a paramedic told him rigor mortis had set in, challenged it, saying “she’s still warm”. He told police a raider had come in and robbed him, then when he ran upstairs his wife was motionless, face down on the bed. His story unravelled after police delved into the secrets of his seemingly happy marriage. They found the couple owed £30,000 in credit card debts and, despite the long hours Garbutt worked, were making little profit. The couple were due to go on holiday to the US, where his wife’s father was from, and Garbutt is thought to have feared that a relief postmaster would discover thousands of pounds were missing from the business. Police also found his wife, 40, had become involved with three men and was searching online for men aged 35-50 to date. The couple had discussed splitting up and the prosecution said Garbutt faced a future with no assets if that happened because they were in his wife’s name. Crucial evidence came from a meal of fish and chips the couple ate the night before Mrs Garbutt died. An expert on digestion told the jury she had stopped processing the meal about six to eight hours after she finished eating, giving a likely time of death in the early hours rather than at about 8.30am when Garbutt claimed the robber struck. David Hatton QC, prosecuting, told the jury: “One of the questions you will have to consider, if you accept this evidence, is the likelihood of a robber or robbers being prepared to violently kill a female sleeping in her own bed at all – but then, having done so, to wait for four to six hours before going downstairs to rob the post office. “And then, it has to be said, having been prepared to bludgeon the lady to death upstairs and wait for that length of time, to leave the defendant himself unharmed and unrestrained to raise the alarm.” Crime guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
World governments pledge millions for the construction of a 20,000-tonne steel arch to prevent further radiation leaks Governments from around the world today pledged $785m (€550m) to seal the stricken nuclear reactor at Chernobyl within a 20,000-tonne steel shield that would be large enough to enclose St Paul’s Cathedral in London. The huge arch is designed to prevent any further radiation from escaping for 100 years. The pledges, made at a conference in Kiev ahead of the 25th anniversary of the disaster on 26 April 2011, bring the total raised for the Chernobyl safety works to $1.8bn and will enable efforts to finally secure the reactor which caught fire in April 1986. Twenty-eight governments have so far offered money. The European commission was the biggest contributor with €110m. The US pledged €86m and Britain – which still has more than 300 hill farms in Wales under radiation restrictions following fallout from Chernobyl – will contribute €35m. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development announced an extra €120m. Japan, Italy and Canada are considering whether to contribute to the fund. The planned arch-shaped structure, which at 190 metres (623 feet) wide and more than 100 metres tall, will take five years to build. It will replace a hastily built concrete “sarcophagus” erected around the reactor in 1987. This now has serious cracks in it, raising fears that 95% of the original nuclear material which is left inside the reactor could escape. Radiation levels directly over the sarcophagus are too high for the arch to be built over it, so it will be constructed in two halves and then moved over it on rails. It is designed so that authorities could start dismantling the reactor from inside in 100 years’ time. The shield is intended to stay in place until either the radiation threat decreases or the Ukrainian government finds a permanent storage facility for the 200 tonnes of uranium and one tonne of radioactive plutonium still inside the ruins. World governments, which had already raised more than €1.1bn in international funding for the shelter, as well as for a permanent nuclear fuel store for other reactors on the Chernobyl site, said that the current crisis in at the Fukushima plant in Japan persuaded them to respond to the appeal by Ukraine, which estimates the accident has so far cost the nation more than $12bn. “Recent events in Fukushima, Japan, have reminded us of the danger this issue may represent,” said European commission president, José Manuel Barroso. The French prime minister, François Fillon, said Fukushima evoked memories of Chernobyl: “More than ever our responsibility is to join together our efforts to limit the consequences of such disasters and to prepare for the future.” But Mikhail Gorbachev, president of the Soviet Union at the time of the Chernobyl disaster and now head of the environment group Green Cross International , used the occasion of the 25th anniversary to say nuclear power was not the answer to the world’s energy problems or to climate change. “Nuclear power has been presented as a financially sound, economically efficient, clean and safe solution that will bring about energy security and drive economic growth. Recently, the so-called ‘nuclear renaissance’ has hitched a free ride on the back of the need to find low-carbon solutions to the climate crisis. The bottom line on the economics of nuclear power is that it simply does not add up. That is why private investment is wisely focusing on better alternatives,” he said in a statement. “It is necessary to realise that nuclear power is not a panacea, as some observers allege, for energy sufficiency or climate change. Its cost-effectiveness is also exaggerated, as its real cost does not account for many hidden expenses. In the United States, for example, direct subsidies to nuclear energy amounted to $115bn between 1947 and 1999, with an additional $145bn in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar energy combined over this same period totalled only $5.5bn. But Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said: “Today, nuclear power is the only real alternative to fossil fuel as a source of a reliable supply.” He acknowledged that confidence in atomic energy has taken a severe blow after the tsunami-triggered disaster at Fukushima. “Fukushima represents a potentially significant setback for nuclear power,” he told participants at the forum, although he stressed that confidence will be “re-established in due course”. “Chernobyl and Fukushima should be shown to be aberrations,” he said. Chernobyl nuclear disaster Nuclear power Ukraine Europe John Vidal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
As First Nation Canadians protest at the Royal Bank of Scotland’s AGM, campaigners say the UK state-owned bank is ‘playing fast and loose’ with taxpayers money Should a state-owned bank be involved in investments that damage the environment, in contradiction to the aims of that state ? Clearly not, but that is the charge made against the Royal Bank of Scotland by campaigners opposed to its work in funding the oil sands industry in Alberta. Their protests move to RBS’s annual general meeting today in Edinburgh, with the arrival of First Nation representatives from Canada, who say their ancestral lands are being devastated . Extracting oil from tar sands also leads to more emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide than conventional oil. The coalition of NGOs say RBS has raised £5.6bn of corporate finance for companies involved in tar sands extraction since being rescued from oblivion by UK taxpayers in 2008. And there’s been no let up – £1.3bn has been raised in the last six months. Companies named include BP, Total and Statoil, all involved in tar sands extraction, Marathon, which refines the oil, and Enbridge and Kinder Morgan, who want to build a new pipeline to carry the oil from Alberta to the west coast. Clayton Thomas-Muller, from Mathias Colomb Cree Nation and who is attending the AGM, said: “Banks have been put on notice for their dirty finance of the Canadian tar sands which is resulting in the destruction of First Nations Peoples’ way of life.” RBS counters that it provides only general corporate finance to companies with wide interests beyond tar sands, but declined to provide alternative figures. A spokeswoman added: “We recognise the concerns raised regarding the extraction of oil sands and our lending is subject to the achievement of strict social and environmental standards. We agree that there is a need to transition to a low carbon economy. In recent years RBS has been one of the most active banks in the world in helping support the development of renewable energies.” So that’s OK then? No, says campaigner Liz Murray, of the World Development Movement. She told me: “We congratulate them for [their renewables investments] but that does not offset the fact that they are massive financers of fossil fuels, and in particular tar sands.” “Investment in some of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels in the world is not a sound investment,” Murray said. “As a UK taxpayer – and so an owner of RBS – I think they are playing fast and loose with my money.” If you are also a UK taxpayer, are you feeling short-changed? Royal Bank of Scotland Oil sands Oil Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …World governments pledge millions for the construction of a 20,000-tonne steel arch to prevent further radiation leaks Governments from around the world today pledged $785m (€550m) to seal the stricken nuclear reactor at Chernobyl within a 20,000-tonne steel shield that would be large enough to enclose St Paul’s Cathedral in London. The huge arch is designed to prevent any further radiation from escaping for 100 years. The pledges, made at a conference in Kiev ahead of the 25th anniversary of the disaster on 26 April 2011, bring the total raised for the Chernobyl safety works to $1.8bn and will enable efforts to finally secure the reactor which caught fire in April 1986. Twenty-eight governments have so far offered money. The European commission was the biggest contributor with €110m. The US pledged €86m and Britain – which still has more than 300 hill farms in Wales under radiation restrictions following fallout from Chernobyl – will contribute €35m. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development announced an extra €120m. Japan, Italy and Canada are considering whether to contribute to the fund. The planned arch-shaped structure, which at 190 metres (623 feet) wide and more than 100 metres tall, will take five years to build. It will replace a hastily built concrete “sarcophagus” erected around the reactor in 1987. This now has serious cracks in it, raising fears that 95% of the original nuclear material which is left inside the reactor could escape. Radiation levels directly over the sarcophagus are too high for the arch to be built over it, so it will be constructed in two halves and then moved over it on rails. It is designed so that authorities could start dismantling the reactor from inside in 100 years’ time. The shield is intended to stay in place until either the radiation threat decreases or the Ukrainian government finds a permanent storage facility for the 200 tonnes of uranium and one tonne of radioactive plutonium still inside the ruins. World governments, which had already raised more than €1.1bn in international funding for the shelter, as well as for a permanent nuclear fuel store for other reactors on the Chernobyl site, said that the current crisis in at the Fukushima plant in Japan persuaded them to respond to the appeal by Ukraine, which estimates the accident has so far cost the nation more than $12bn. “Recent events in Fukushima, Japan, have reminded us of the danger this issue may represent,” said European commission president, José Manuel Barroso. The French prime minister, François Fillon, said Fukushima evoked memories of Chernobyl: “More than ever our responsibility is to join together our efforts to limit the consequences of such disasters and to prepare for the future.” But Mikhail Gorbachev, president of the Soviet Union at the time of the Chernobyl disaster and now head of the environment group Green Cross International , used the occasion of the 25th anniversary to say nuclear power was not the answer to the world’s energy problems or to climate change. “Nuclear power has been presented as a financially sound, economically efficient, clean and safe solution that will bring about energy security and drive economic growth. Recently, the so-called ‘nuclear renaissance’ has hitched a free ride on the back of the need to find low-carbon solutions to the climate crisis. The bottom line on the economics of nuclear power is that it simply does not add up. That is why private investment is wisely focusing on better alternatives,” he said in a statement. “It is necessary to realise that nuclear power is not a panacea, as some observers allege, for energy sufficiency or climate change. Its cost-effectiveness is also exaggerated, as its real cost does not account for many hidden expenses. In the United States, for example, direct subsidies to nuclear energy amounted to $115bn between 1947 and 1999, with an additional $145bn in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar energy combined over this same period totalled only $5.5bn. But Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said: “Today, nuclear power is the only real alternative to fossil fuel as a source of a reliable supply.” He acknowledged that confidence in atomic energy has taken a severe blow after the tsunami-triggered disaster at Fukushima. “Fukushima represents a potentially significant setback for nuclear power,” he told participants at the forum, although he stressed that confidence will be “re-established in due course”. “Chernobyl and Fukushima should be shown to be aberrations,” he said. Chernobyl nuclear disaster Nuclear power Ukraine Europe John Vidal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Support of young voters crucial in re-election of Goodluck Jonathan, who must work to heal divided nation and quell unrest The result was no surprise, nor was the unrest – but there were also tentative grounds to hope that last weekend’s Nigerian presidential election signalled a turning point for the underperforming African giant. Goodluck Jonathan retained the presidency with around 57% of the vote. He defeated Muhammadu Buhari , a former military ruler, who polled around 31%. There was deadly rioting in Buhari’s northern, largely Muslim stronghold. Most significant in the long term, however, was the verdict of observers that this has been Nigeria’s fairest election in decades. It was far from perfect, but helped to draw a line under the coups, fraud and vote-rigging of the past. Furthermore, young people had turned out in high numbers to elect a man who claims to represent a break from the old order. Just possibly, this was the week Nigeria took an important step towards fulfilling its immense potential. Few countries fail to punch their weight as dismally as Nigeria. It has Africa’s biggest population at around 150 million. Its economy has grown 6% or 7% over the past few years. It pumps more oil than any other African country, much of it to the US, and has vast untapped mineral resources. But between 1960 and 1999, officials are said to have stolen more than $440bn from the people. Since 1990, the proportion of Nigerians living in poverty has increased from 49% to 77%. The public education and health systems have all but collapsed. Power
Continue reading …
Support of young voters crucial in re-election of Goodluck Jonathan, who must work to heal divided nation and quell unrest The result was no surprise, nor was the unrest – but there were also tentative grounds to hope that last weekend’s Nigerian presidential election signalled a turning point for the underperforming African giant. Goodluck Jonathan retained the presidency with around 57% of the vote. He defeated Muhammadu Buhari , a former military ruler, who polled around 31%. There was deadly rioting in Buhari’s northern, largely Muslim stronghold. Most significant in the long term, however, was the verdict of observers that this has been Nigeria’s fairest election in decades. It was far from perfect, but helped to draw a line under the coups, fraud and vote-rigging of the past. Furthermore, young people had turned out in high numbers to elect a man who claims to represent a break from the old order. Just possibly, this was the week Nigeria took an important step towards fulfilling its immense potential. Few countries fail to punch their weight as dismally as Nigeria. It has Africa’s biggest population at around 150 million. Its economy has grown 6% or 7% over the past few years. It pumps more oil than any other African country, much of it to the US, and has vast untapped mineral resources. But between 1960 and 1999, officials are said to have stolen more than $440bn from the people. Since 1990, the proportion of Nigerians living in poverty has increased from 49% to 77%. The public education and health systems have all but collapsed. Power
Continue reading …
• Earnings per share of $1.56, against forecasts of 82 cents • Bank sets aside $5.2bn to pay staff • Figures hit by $5bn payout to Warren Buffett • Boss Lloyd Blankfein ‘wants to leave’ Assailed by critics on all sides, Goldman Sachs did what it does best on Tuesday, smashing estimates for its first-quarter results and setting aside $5.23bn (£3.2bn) to pay its staff. The bank reported net revenues of $11.89bn and net earnings of $2.74bn for the first quarter which ended on 31 March, 2011. Profits were down 21%, held back by a payout to billionaire investor Warren Buffett, but the figures comfortably beat analysts’ forecasts. Diluted earnings per common share were $1.56. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected Goldman to post first-quarter earnings of 82 cents a share, down from $5.59 a year earlier. The bank’s results were hampered by the decision to buy back $5bn of shares from Warren Buffett. The billionaire investor made a $5bn bet on Goldman at the low point of the financial crisis in a move that was seen as a major vote of confidence in the bank. Goldman bought back the preferred stock from Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway during the quarter, reducing its earnings by $1.6bn. The $5.23bn set aside to pay salary, bonuses and other compensations was 5% lower than the money set aside by the bank in the first quarter of last year but 132% higher than the $2.25bn set aside in the last quarter. The ratio of compensation and benefits to net revenues for the first quarter of 2011 was 44%, compared to 43% for the same quarter last year. “We are pleased with our first-quarter results,” said Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and chief executive. “Generally improving market and economic conditions, coupled with our strong client franchise, produced solid results. Looking ahead, we continue to see encouraging indications for economic activity globally.” Excluding Buffett’s payment, the firm posted a per share profit of $4.38. Investment banking revenues rose 5%, investment management revenues overall rose 16% to $1.3bn. Institutional client services revenues dropped 22%. Last year’s first quarter was a trading bonanza for many Wall Street banks and has proved hard to match with both Bank of America and Citigroup reporting big declines in trading revenues from the year-ago period. Goldman’s arch-rival JP Morgan Chase managed to post strong trading results last Wednesday , especially in fixed income, currencies and commodities. Goldman’s results come as speculation mounts that Blankfein is considering stepping down . Friends told the New York Times that the 56-year-old is “exhausted” and would be leaving “when he could do so gracefully, without the move appearing to be anything but voluntary”. Last week Senator Carl Levin singled out Goldman for particular criticism after the publication of the 650-page bipartisan report, Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse. Levin said “Goldman clearly misled their clients and they misled Congress,” and said he would push for the department of justice to investigate whether criminal charges should be brought against Blankfein and other executives. In a statement the bank said: “While we disagree with much of the report, we take seriously the issues explored by the subcommittee. We recently issued the results of a comprehensive examination of our business standards and practices and committed to making significant changes that will strengthen relationships with clients, improve transparency and disclosure and enhance standards for the review, approval and suitability of complex instruments.” Goldman Sachs Banking Warren Buffett Financial crisis United States Dominic Rushe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Credit: TNR Paul Ryan and George Bush Well, well, well. Paul Ryan is a typical Republican hypocrite. Who could have predicted that? Remembering When Paul Ryan Worried the Debt Was Too Small There are senior Bush policymakers who privately admit that Hunter and his allies in Congress have a point. But these officials claim they cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. Nor can they adjust unrealistic methods that bloat the revenue loss from Bush’s cuts. Thus, Washington’s high-tax establishment is able to use underestimated surplus projections and overestimated tax losses to claim the country cannot afford the president’s program. “It’s too small,” Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the most junior member of the Ways and Means Committee but a leading House supply-sider, told me . “It’s not big enough to fit all the policy we want.” Ryan has refashioned his image from “supply-sider” to “serious budget hawk,” but there’s not much evidence his worldview has changed. He still favors enormous tax cuts for the rich far beyond those passed into law by George W. Bush, only this time he promises to pay for them via closing unspecified deductions. Of course, Ryan now takes an extremely dire view of thing government’s long-term fiscal position, as opposed to the wildly optimistic view he took under Bush. I’m sure events have played a role here. But there’s also a clear partisan tint. Republicans dismissed any concerns about the debt under Bush, which allowed their side to freely push fiscal policy in their direction and boost their own popularity by avoiding difficult trade-offs. As soon as Obama took office, they reversed themselves and successfully made fiscal conservatism a powerful constraining force on Obama’s agenda.
Continue reading …
Credit: TNR Paul Ryan and George Bush Well, well, well. Paul Ryan is a typical Republican hypocrite. Who could have predicted that? Remembering When Paul Ryan Worried the Debt Was Too Small There are senior Bush policymakers who privately admit that Hunter and his allies in Congress have a point. But these officials claim they cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. Nor can they adjust unrealistic methods that bloat the revenue loss from Bush’s cuts. Thus, Washington’s high-tax establishment is able to use underestimated surplus projections and overestimated tax losses to claim the country cannot afford the president’s program. “It’s too small,” Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the most junior member of the Ways and Means Committee but a leading House supply-sider, told me . “It’s not big enough to fit all the policy we want.” Ryan has refashioned his image from “supply-sider” to “serious budget hawk,” but there’s not much evidence his worldview has changed. He still favors enormous tax cuts for the rich far beyond those passed into law by George W. Bush, only this time he promises to pay for them via closing unspecified deductions. Of course, Ryan now takes an extremely dire view of thing government’s long-term fiscal position, as opposed to the wildly optimistic view he took under Bush. I’m sure events have played a role here. But there’s also a clear partisan tint. Republicans dismissed any concerns about the debt under Bush, which allowed their side to freely push fiscal policy in their direction and boost their own popularity by avoiding difficult trade-offs. As soon as Obama took office, they reversed themselves and successfully made fiscal conservatism a powerful constraining force on Obama’s agenda.
Continue reading …
Credit: TNR Paul Ryan and George Bush Well, well, well. Paul Ryan is a typical Republican hypocrite. Who could have predicted that? Remembering When Paul Ryan Worried the Debt Was Too Small There are senior Bush policymakers who privately admit that Hunter and his allies in Congress have a point. But these officials claim they cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. Nor can they adjust unrealistic methods that bloat the revenue loss from Bush’s cuts. Thus, Washington’s high-tax establishment is able to use underestimated surplus projections and overestimated tax losses to claim the country cannot afford the president’s program. “It’s too small,” Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the most junior member of the Ways and Means Committee but a leading House supply-sider, told me . “It’s not big enough to fit all the policy we want.” Ryan has refashioned his image from “supply-sider” to “serious budget hawk,” but there’s not much evidence his worldview has changed. He still favors enormous tax cuts for the rich far beyond those passed into law by George W. Bush, only this time he promises to pay for them via closing unspecified deductions. Of course, Ryan now takes an extremely dire view of thing government’s long-term fiscal position, as opposed to the wildly optimistic view he took under Bush. I’m sure events have played a role here. But there’s also a clear partisan tint. Republicans dismissed any concerns about the debt under Bush, which allowed their side to freely push fiscal policy in their direction and boost their own popularity by avoiding difficult trade-offs. As soon as Obama took office, they reversed themselves and successfully made fiscal conservatism a powerful constraining force on Obama’s agenda.
Continue reading …