Altered minds, altered states and bags of style – this sci-fi thriller is a superb follow-up for Duncan Jones With his debut movie Moon, Duncan Jones made a mighty leap; now with this superb follow-up, he has hit the ground sprinting. Source Code is a terrifically exciting and hugely enjoyable sci-fi thriller, written by Ben Ripley. For pure entertainment, there’s nothing around to touch it. Source Code is about conspiracies, altered minds and altered states, far-fetched in the most elegant and Hitchcockian way, and the sheer outrageousness of it all is muscular and streamlined. The film is about modified reality and inner space, and there are points of comparison with Christopher Nolan’s Inception. But the world of Source Code seems to me more interesting, and more able to incubate real drama, real suspense and even some real humour. At its centre is Colter Stevens, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, a US army helicopter pilot who has crashed in Afghanistan. When he comes to, he finds himself in civilian clothes aboard a crowded commuter train arriving slightly late into Chicago on a glorious summer morning. He appears to be in someone else’s body: that of a suburban teacher. Opposite him sits Christina (Michelle Monaghan) who behaves as if a brief nap has merely interrupted their highly flirtatious conversation, but she is then increasingly alarmed as Colter, wild-eyed and panicky, demands to know what is happening and what is going on. After eight minutes, a catastrophic event then hurls Colter back into a situation that is in some ways even more perplexing. He is in uniform, injured and immobilised in what appears to be part of a wrecked military aircraft. Is this real? Or is it the train that’s real? Through a video monitor, he must communicate with a woman who is evidently now his commanding officer. Goodwin, played by Vera Farmiga, treats him with the same unreadable solicitousness as Kevin
Continue reading …
Youth hiding in south London shop when attackers opened fire, critically wounding a five-year-old girl, comes forward One of the youths thought to have been the target of the gang who shot five-year-old Thursha Kamaleswaran has contacted the police. The news came as sources revealed that up to 50 gangs operate in the area where Thursha and another bystander became innocent victims of a vicious turf war. Detectives investigating the shooting at the Stockwell Food and Wine Shop in south London on Tuesday night have called in territorial support group officers to reassure locals fearing revenge attacks. Chief Superintendent Nick Ephgrave called for people in the area to come forward if they have information about the “truly shocking event”. A shopkeeper, believed to be Roshan Selvakumar, 35, was also hit, suffering a head wound during the attack. They were caught up in the violence when two youths attempted to hide in the store as they were being chased by three other youths on bicycles. One youth stopped at the door and opened fire indiscriminately. The three attackers – who a witness said were aged between 14 and 17 – fled from the Stockwell Road shop, along Broomgrove Road and into the Stockwell Park estate. The victims, who police said were Sri Lankan, were rushed to hospital in south London. They are both in a critical but stable condition. Thursha was visiting her aunt and uncle, when the attackers struck. Crimestoppers is offering a £50,000 reward for information leading to the attackers’ capture. Police said the girl’s 12-year-old brother and three-year-old sister were also in the shop at the time of the shooting, but were unhurt. Thursha’s parents held a bedside vigil as she fought to recover from her injuries, a close family friend said. Velluppillai Navaratnam, 49, from Croydon, south London, said friends and family members were praying for her recovery. “I would like to say that it has been a very difficult time for family and friends,” he told reporters at the scene of the shooting. “The parents of Thursha are at the hospital now. We are all praying for her to get well soon.” Officers are still reviewing CCTV footage in a bid to track down the culprits, Detective Chief Inspector Tony Boughton told reporters at the scene in Stockwell. “We are beginning to get a clearer picture of what happened,” he said. “One of the youths who first ran into the shop has come forward to police and is assisting us with our inquiries. We are still trying to trace the other individual and appeal to him to come forward.” Gun crime Crime London Gangs Young people Communities guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media As Dave pointed out earlier this week, Hannity has gone full-tilt birther alongside Donald Trump. In Wednesday’s show, he uses the controversy as a way to make Tim Pawlenty look reasonable while continuing to hammer on it.
Continue reading …Huffington Post Refuses to Address Maher’s Contributor Status After Vulgar Attacks on Palin
March 31, 2011 No Comment
Following its controversial decision to ban Andrew Breitbart from publishing articles at its front page, the Huffington Post has found itself in quite a pickle now that one of its regular contributors, comedian Bill Maher, made disgustingly vulgar references to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. As NewsBusters previously reported , Breitbart made some comments about President Obama's former green czar Van Jones that precipitated the following hypocritical statement from HuffPo spokesman Mario Ruiz last Thursday (readers are warned of vulgar content in full article): The Huffington Post is committed to fostering a lively and often provocative debate about the issues of the day and encourages a wide range of voices from all perspectives to participate. Andrew Brietbart’s [sic] false ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched. As a result, we will no longer feature his posts on the front page. He is welcome to continue publishing his work on HuffPost provided it adheres to our editorial guidelines, as the two posts he published on HuffPost did — guidelines that include a strict prohibition on ad hominem attacks. Our decision today recognizes that placing posts on the front page is an editorial call that elevates some posts over others, and is an indication of how seriously we take these judgment calls. Just what were Breitbart's supposedly offensive comments ? Van Jones is a commie punk. He was exposed to a great extent because of the hard journalism that was done at my website, that exposed him as a guy who was an unvetted liability to the Obama administration. He was forced to step down because of my journalistic work. I believe that Van Jones, and Color of Change, and ACORN poison the black community with propaganda that divides this country. Van Jones is a human toxin, ACORN was a human toxin. These are poisonous, venomous forces within the American experience. I will expose them like the cockroaches that they are. By contrast, Maher on March 18 called Palin a “twat” and on March 27 called her a “cunt.” Which is worse: calling a man a “commie punk” or a woman a “cunt”? One would certainly think the latter, yet HuffPo has yet to comment. With this in mind, I sent co-founder Arianna Huffington and editor Roy Sekoff the following email message Tuesday: Ms. Huffington and Mr. Sekoff: Noel Sheppard here from NewsBusters. I'm wondering if Bill Maher calling former Alaska governor Sarah Palin a “twat” and a “cunt” violates the Huffington Post's “tenets of debate and civil discourse” that Mario Ruiz noted in his statement concerning Andrew Breitbart's banning from your front page. One would think such vulgar slurs are far worse than anything Breitbart said to the Daily Caller concerning Van Jones. Is Maher going to be banned from your front page? When are you planning on notifying your readers of this decision, and if not, why not? Noel Sheppard/NewsBusters.org After a number of hours went by without a response, I sent another one to Huffington and Sekoff but separately this time: Ms. Huffington, This is Noel Sheppard, the Associate Editor of NewsBusters trying for the second time to get a comment from you regarding Bill Maher being a front page contributor to the Huffington Post. As you know, in the past twelve days, Maher has called former Alaska governor Sarah Palin a “twat” and a “cunt.” Your Mario Ruiz in his statement concerning Andrew Breitbart’s banning from the Post’s front page said Breitbart’s comments in the Daily Caller about Van Jones had violated the “tenets of debate and civil discourse.” We at NewsBusters would like an explanation as to why Maher’s attacks on Palin aren’t at least as bad as Breitbart’s comments regarding Jones. As we see Maher’s offense as far worse, given the Post’s rules, we would like to know either why you disagree or when Maher is going to be banned from your front page. We would like a response concerning this matter at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Noel Sheppard/NewsBusters.org Having still not received a response, on Wednesday morning I sent a roughly similar version of the following to HuffPo reporters Jason Linkins, Sam Stein, and the spokesman that issued the Breitbart statement, Mario Ruiz: Mr. Ruiz, This is Noel Sheppard, the Associate Editor of NewsBusters trying to get a comment from you regarding Bill Maher being a front page contributor to the Huffington Post. As you know, in the past twelve days, Maher has called former Alaska governor Sarah Palin a “twat” and a “cunt.” In your statement concerning Andrew Breitbart’s banning from the Post’s front page, you said Breitbart’s comments about Van Jones in the Daily Caller violated the “tenets of debate and civil discourse.” We at NewsBusters would like an explanation as to why Maher’s attacks on Palin aren’t at least as bad as Breitbart’s comments regarding Jones. As we see Maher’s offense as far worse, given the Post’s rules, we would like to know either why you disagree or when Maher is going to be banned from your front page. We would like a response concerning this matter at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Noel Sheppard/NewsBusters.org Later in the day Wednesday, having only received a response from Linkins who advised me to contact Ruiz, I sent the following to the entire group: Arianna Huffington et al, I have been trying for several days to get an answer concerning the Huffington Post’s position on Bill Maher as a contributor given his recent vulgar attacks on Sarah Palin and your decision to ban Andrew Breitbart from your front page due to comments he made regarding Van Jones. To date, no one has responded. NewsBusters is going to be running a piece concerning this matter Thursday and would like an opinion about it from someone within your organization. If I don’t hear back, we have no choice but to run the piece without your input while advising our readers of your silence. Sincerely, Noel Sheppard/NewsBusters.org Sadly, as of 11:00 AM, I still have no response, not even from HuffPo spokesman Ruiz. Is this the kind of transparency we can expect from AOL/Huffington Post in the future? Of course, I realize Arianna et al are in a very tough spot. They made what was clearly an absurd statement about “tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched” when everyone in the industry knows their website is filled with hateful rhetoric and ad hominem attacks against conservatives on almost a daily basis. The laughter at Ruiz's statement throughout the blogosphere on both sides of the aisle was deafening. Complicating matters further was one of their popular contributors the day after Breitbart was canned making a vulgar slur at Palin and another one nine days later. As most people know, Huffington has been friends with Maher for years. She was a regular guest on his Comedy Central program “Politically Incorrect” appearing in an ongoing gag with Al Franken called “Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows.” Maybe more importantly, Maher is a darling of the Left. Would Huffington dare do anything to him like she did to Breitbart? Unfortunately, not doing so totally invalidates the reason given by Ruiz for Breitbart's demotion. No wonder I didn't get any replies to my email messages as I'm sure these folks hope this matter is going to just go away as quickly as possible – but they shouldn't count on it. Maher's vitriolic attacks have been in the sights of writers on both sides of the aisle for years. The folks at HuffPo should know that any time one of his comments crosses the “tenets of debate and civil discourse” line they have set for their contributors, the blogosphere will be asking why he's still a front page contributor at their website. More importantly, their continued silence regarding this glaring hypocrisy will act to reduce whatever journalistic integrity and credibility they claim to strive for potentially leading AOL and its shareholders to seriously question their investment.
Continue reading …
With the critics savaging Sucker Punch, it’s possible for Warner Bros to promote Christopher Nolan, demote Zack Snyder and still use his mainly visual gifts Can one film ruin a career? Maybe it can, if that film is Sucker Punch. Speculation has been rife this week that Zack Snyder might find himself out of the Superman hotseat due to the critical drubbing and poor US box-office bow for his salacious new action fantasy. MTV News even quotes a number of critics willing to bet their last greenback that the US film-maker is about to be unceremoniously dumped in favour of another director. At first glance, this all seems a bit farfetched. Snyder was only handed the job of reviving the Man of Steel in October, and Warner Bros executives will rest comfortable in the knowledge that they have producer Christopher Nolan above him in the film-making hierarchy as the project’s “godfather”. On the other hand, anyone who has seen Sucker Punch will easily be able to understand why it might prove to be the director’s kryptonite. Horribly misconceived, puerile, distasteful and hugely wasteful of the talent involved, Snyder’s latest release is Coyote Ugly for the fanboy brigade – or Girl, Interrupted , had Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie been forced to spend the entire film shooting things while tarted up to the nines in stockings and suspenders. Quite what Snyder was thinking is anyone’s guess, but one can only assume he was given free reign to indulge his cinematic vision following the relative box-office successes of 300 and Watchmen (and promptly fluffed his lines). Snyder’s vision, such as it is, seems to be that of a 15-year-old video-game junkie. Sucker Punch is all hotpants and uzis, scantily clad babes blowing the bejesus out of hordes of zombie Nazi troopers and bazookaing dragons and giant robots to kingdom come. It’s even compartmentalised into game-style, task-orientated segments which must be completed to allow our high-kicking heroines to escape the nuthouse-cum-whorehouse where they have been incarcerated. One can only imagine somebody somewhere thought this might appeal to adolescent males in the same way the similarly vacuous Twilight movies have drooling teenage girls flocking to cinemas. I am pleased to report that somebody somewhere got it very wrong indeed. I am less pleased to admit that, earlier this year, I thought Sucker Punch might just be one of this year’s fantasy highlights, based on Snyder’s excellent efforts on Watchmen. If he does remain in charge of Superman, we can only hope that results will improve when he is once again working from somebody else’s screenplay, which in the latter film’s case is a much-hyped David S Goyer /Nolan creation. The other big news this week on a Warner/DC tip (the studio owns the screen rights to all the comic book publisher’s major titles) is head honcho Jeff Robinov’s LA Times interview , in which he reveals two things. Firstly, Nolan will be in charge of rebooting Batman in a producer’s role once he has finished work on The Dark Knight Rises, and secondly, there are proposals in the works to revive the long-awaited (albeit with some degree of trepidation) plan for a Justice League movie, uniting the caped crusader with Superman, Wonder Woman and other characters in one feature. What this means is that Warner are basically counting on Nolan to oversee both their major superhero “franchises” for the foreseable future. What it does not mean, apparently, is that the British film-maker will also be taking charge of a Justice League film. Speaking on the red carpet at the London premiere of Sucker Punch, Snyder said there were no plans to link his iteration of Superman or either Nolan version of Batman (either the current series or the planned post- Dark Knight Rises reboot) with Justice League. “It doesn’t [connect],” Snyder said. “Like what Chris Nolan is doing and what I’m doing with Superman, what they’ll do with Justice League will be its own thing with its own Batman and own Superman. We’ll be over here with our movie and they’ll kind of get to do it twice, which is kind of cool.” Except, of course, that it isn’t. The most recent attempt to bring Justice League to the big screen failed precisely because executives feared putting parallel iterations of Batman and Superman on the screen at the same time. Why they have changed their minds now, beyond the potential for generating extra revenue, is somewhat open to question. Without tie-ins to the more grown-up solo series (the Snyder-Nolan Superman is being pitched as a more realistic take than previous versions, in line with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight ), Justice League looks likely to be a rather insipid affair, since none of its main protagonists will have more than a small portion of screen time to establish themselves. So here’s a solution: give Snyder Justice League. The film-maker has an unquestionable gift for visual flourishes which might just paper over the cracks of what would likely be a prosaic storyline, even if it didn’t quite work for Sucker Punch. Then give Superman to someone else, or better still hold off bringing the Man of Steel back to the big screen until Nolan himself has the time and inclination to take on the project as director. Mr Robinov, I’ll expect my cheque in the next post. Christopher Nolan Science fiction and fantasy Comics and graphic novels Film adaptations Ben Child guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The needs of vulnerable disabled people are being sidelined by overstretched services, and families such as ours are fracturing My husband and I are currently facing one of the most difficult decisions of our lives. Do we place our disabled daughter in residential care? Parenting a child with any disability is extremely tough. We have to face many hurdles, from the lack of adequate respite provision to verbal abuse on the streets. Social exclusion also adds to the pressure on family life. Life can be extraordinarily bleak. Autism, learning disability and epilepsy are Emily’s diagnoses. Her level of care needs are high and her medical needs are in a fluid state as we try to achieve the correct epilepsy medication for her. We are currently wading through the quagmire of side-effects, but for us it is her violence that takes the greatest toll. The lack of a tangible sign of her disability – such as a wheelchair – have led many people in public to wrongly conclude that she is a badly parented troublemaker. She is noisy and she draws the eye, as she often wears a pair of pink earmuffs to protect her ears from crying babies. “Look at that, ” a teenage boy once said, spotting Emily in a shopping centre and pointing her out to his mates. That phrase is branded into my memory. “That” is a person. My daughter. I made this point to the young man responsible. Admittedly when I pointed out the error of his ways I may not have done so as calmly as I’m doing now, but I feel I covered the basics. I’ve fought for her and loved her and cried for her for longer than I can remember, but I find we are now torn between what Emily wants and what we need, because her violence – so rooted in her anxiety and need to control her environment – has brought us to crisis point. Her shouting led to slapping, and that led to punching. How long before she headbutts one of us? Or worse? Her world at home is dovetailed to her needs, but she will always have to live to the agenda of others so am I, by facilitating this, actually doing her a disservice? At 14, is she simply demonstrating extreme teenage rebellion – albeit one which is now dangerous? Stranger danger, the bogeyman of the terrified modern parent, is never far from our minds because abuse of disabled people in all forms outside their homes is not just the stuff of nightmares . We are battling to get the Children with Disabilities team to listen, to give us more than platitudes. We have asked for help and were given emergency respite but the service, accessed by Emily for the last seven years, is now apparently no longer an option. There are now no emergency respite beds at respite units in Shropshire. If we need it again, they will send her to a foster family. Many parents of disabled children who battle daily with overstretched support services, the bullying of their children, and meetings that fail to deliver meaningful support, end up divorcing. Or they become so entrenched in caring responsibilities that they believe they alone can give their child what they need. One example of this is the case of Stephania Wolf , whose disabled daughter, Sam, apparently starved to death after Stephania died. Stephania had reportedly turned down offers of support, yet neighbours say that she put a “Help” sign on the roof of her house in the months before they died. Ultimately, they were both failed. Other parents who lack support have lost hope, as Fiona Pilkington did . She killed herself and her disabled 18-year-old daughter in 2007, after years of abuse from youths who waited outside her house. Services were sparse then, when there was money to be spent, let alone now. My fear is that, in a time of recession, the very real needs of vulnerable people and their families are being sidelined. How can we let that happen? In 2007, disability charity Scope ran their Time to Get Equal week. The survey they commissioned was very revealing in finding that “over a quarter of respondents would pay £1 a week extra council tax to ensure disabled people in their area could get the support they need – and nearly one in 10 people would pay an extra £5 a week or more.” I wonder if that still holds true today. Our family, like many others in a similar situation, is fracturing. This is the reality. To make this terrifying decision takes energy, clarity and time. Yet we are at crisis point. They say you should never make important decisions when you’re upset. Wise words indeed. Long-term care Disability Autism Health Social care Public sector cuts Public services policy Nicola Clark guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
US tech firm claims search engine is restricting competition to the ‘detriment of European consumers’ Microsoft has upped the ante in its bitter rivalry with Google by filing its first formal complaint to regulators, claiming the search engine giant is restricting competition. The US technology firm on Thursday filed the complaint to the European commission, which announced a formal investigation into Google in November , adding significant weight to the chorus of opposition which has seen complaints to Brussels from mainly small internet sites such as price comparison firm Foundem and Microsoft-owned firm Ciao. Microsoft acknowledged the irony of filing an antitrust complaint – the company has itself paid billions in fines and levies in a string of protracted anti-competitive cases over the years. “Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly,” said Brad Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, in a blog posting . In a lengthy and detailed post Smith said that Microsoft had been prompted to act after witnessing a “broadening pattern of conduct aimed at stopping anyone else from creating a competitive alternative”. Smith added that as “troubling” as the competitive landscape is in the US market “it is worse in Europe”. with Google controlling up to 95% of the search market. The company goes on to outline a number of examples of a “pattern of actions” that it claims Google has taken to “entrench its dominance in the markets for online search and search advertising to the detriment of European consumers”. Microsoft alleges that these anti-competitive practices include stopping its search engine, called Bing, from indexing content on Google-owned YouTube; blocking Microsoft Windows smartphones from “operating properly” with YouTube; blocking access to content owned by book publishers; and limiting the flow of ad campaign information back to advertisers, making it more expensive to run ads with rivals. “Over the past year, a growing number of advertisers, publishers, and consumers have expressed to us their concerns about the search market in Europe,” said Smith. “They’ve urged us to share our knowledge of the search market with competition officials.” Google said it would be “happy to explain” how its business works. “We’re not surprised that Microsoft has done this, since one of their subsidiaries was one of the original complainants,” said a spokesman. “For our part, we continue to discuss the case with the European commission.” A spokeswoman for the European commission said: “The commission takes note of the complaint and, as is the procedure, will inform Google to allow it to submit its own views. No further comment.” Microsoft Computing Google Search engines Internet European commission European Union Digital media YouTube Mark Sweney guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
More than 20 people have been detained and others are missing after anonymous calls for ‘jasmine revolution’ China has launched the most severe crackdown on dissidents and activists for more than a decade, human rights campaigners have warned. At least 23 people have been detained, mostly in relation to charges of incitement to subversion or creating a disturbance; three more have been formally arrested; and a dozen people are missing, including several prominent human rights lawyers. Rights groups say they are increasingly concerned that those who have vanished may be at physical risk. The move follows anonymous online calls for “jasmine revolution” protests, echoing the uprisings in the Middle East. Although the posting was on an overseas website, and there was little sign of domestic support for the appeal, officials began detaining and harassing people within hours of its appearance. “I think the crackdown is partly to find out who is behind it,” said Wang Songlian of the Chinese Human Rights Defenders network, which has been monitoring the detentions. It believes about 200 more people had their movements controlled for shorter periods. Wang added: “But part of it is an opportunity to retaliate against certain people … The terror of this current crackdown is that it is very difficult to know whether you are going to be next. That in itself is very unsettling for activists.” The group is one of several to describe the campaign as the harshest since 1998, when the government imprisoned around two dozen activists for organising the China Democracy political party, although some argue that the troubled regions of Xinjiang and Tibet have seen equally sweeping “anti-separatist” drives in the interim. Many of the latest detainees appear to have been targeted for publicly criticising the authorities on Twitter or other online services, or have a history of rights activism. Although three men in Sichuan have been formally arrested for incitement to subversion – well-known blogger Ran Yunfei , Chen Wei and Ding Mao – the greatest concern is for those who have simply disappeared. In several cases, they were last seen being taken away by police. “We are worried and can’t eat well or sleep properly each night. They are doing good deeds for people; why should they be taken away?” said Pang Jinhua, mother-in-law of lawyer Teng Biao, who has been missing since mid-February. Jiang Tianyong’s wife, Jin Bianling, said police told her they did not know his whereabouts, while Chinese Human Rights Defenders reported that Tang Jitian is now thought to be held in “soft detention” in his hometown in Jilin. Other lawyers missing are Li Tiantian of Shanghai and Liu Shihui from Guangzhou. The latter vanished shortly after telling the Guardian he had been hooded and beaten on his way to a demonstration . Another Guangzhou lawyer, Tang Jingling, may also be missing. Their friends and supporters are increasingly fearful that they may face long prison terms or lengthy illegal detentions and even physical abuse. Chinese law states that police must inform an individual’s relatives or place of work within 24 hours of detention, unless there is no way to do so or it would “impede the investigation”. Joshua Rosenzweig of the Dui Hua foundation, which supports political prisoners, said that the China Democracy party activists had at least gone through a judicial process, however flawed. “One of the things disturbing about this latest crackdown is how apparently routine it has become for security agents to essentially ignore the legal procedures in their treatment of activists,” he said. He added: “The possibility of torture – whether in reality or in suspicion – is a bigger deterrent and much more chilling than jail … [People] wonder if they are next on the list.” Nicholas Bequelin, an Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch, warned: “We are very apprehensive about the risk of torture and ill-treatment. “We are seeing the government trying to roll back the space that has opened up in the last 10 years, particularly in terms of the assertion of rights. “It’s an effort to instil fear for internet users so they exercise self-censorship. It’s also an attempt to decapitate civil society by taking away its most visible figures.” Many usually outspoken government critics have become reluctant to speak to diplomats, journalists or other foreign contacts. Police did not respond to faxed questions about the missing lawyers. Asked about concerns for their whereabouts and physical safety, a foreign ministry spokeswoman, Jiang Yu, told a regular press briefing: “China’s judicial authorities work independently. “China, as a country under the rule of law, protects its citizens’ basic rights and freedoms – including freedom of expression – but citizens while exercising their rights have an obligation to abide by the law and should not bring harm to the public interest.” Earlier this week China dismissed a call from a UN rights agency to free human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng , who has not been seen for almost a year and is thought to have been detained for two years. There is also concern for the whereabouts of Australian novelist and writer Yang Hengjun . China Human rights Protest Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
After shock resignation from Berkshire Hathaway empire, David Sokol says he did nothing wrong in buying stake in Lubrizol oil company David Sokol, once seen as the favoured successor to Warren Buffett, has rejected claims of insider trading and defended his purchase of shares in a company shortly before it was bought by the billionaire. Speaking for the first time since his shock resignation from the Berkshire Hathaway empire was announced on Wednesday night, Sokol insisted he had behaved legally and honourably. Sokol told CNBC he had no influence over which companies Buffett invested in and that his decision to quit Berkshire was unrelated to his stake in Lubrizol. “I don’t believe I did anything wrong,” Sokol told CNBC. “I made an investment that I believed in. If I didn’t believe in the company, I wouldn’t have invested in it.” Sokol told CNBC he had been contacted by bankers from Citigroup on 13 December last year. They suggested a number of potential acquisition targets including Lubrizol. Sokol concluded that Lubrizol was the most attractive and asked the bankers to set up a meeting between himself and chief executive James Hambrick. Sokol then attempted to buy 50,000 shares in the company, but only managed to acquire 2,300 which he sold shortly afterwards. In early January, he bought another 96,000 shares at about $104 (£65) each. According to Buffett , Sokol suggested buying Lubrizol on 14 or 15 January. The $9.7bn deal was announced on 14 March after Berkshire’s $135-per-share offer was accepted, giving Sokol a paper profit of almost $3m. Sokol acknowledged the Lubrizol stake did raise questions. “I can understand the appearance issue and that’s why we decided to make it public.” he said. The stake would eventually have been revealed under regulatory filings. During the TV interview, which was eagerly watched on Wall Street and in the City, Sokol explained he had no influence over whether Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway would decide to bid for a company. “I don’t think there was any impropriety,” he insisted. “I didn’t have any inside information.” “The reality is that I didn’t think there was a 5% chance of Warren being interested in the company.” Sokol, who chaired several Berkshire subsidiaries, including the corporate airline, NetJets, said he had not been contacted by the Securities Exchange Commission over his share dealings. He also told CNBC that Charlie Munger, another of Buffett’s top lieutenants, had owned 3% of Chinese carmaker BYD before asking Sokol to examine teaming up with it. Berkshire bought 10% of BYD in September 2008 . Questioned about the timing of the move, Sokol said the team at NetJets could run the airline without him and that, by departing now, it would help the usual discussions about Buffett’s succession at Berkshire’s annual meeting at the end of April. Looking ahead, Sokol said he was keen to set up and run his own fund. He was also ebullient in his praise for the company he is leaving behind. “No disrespect to Warren or Berkshire – frankly, I love both of them,” he said. Sokol was also sufficiently relaxed to conclude the interview by wishing his granddaughter Lucy a happy birthday. Warren Buffett Investing Financial sector US economy Economics United States Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Select committee also says MPs who believe they are victims of phone hacking should pursue the matter in court A powerful committee of MPs said on Thursday that hacking mobile phones belonging to members of the House of Commons could amount to contempt of parliament. A report on phone hacking published by the select committee on standards and privileges concluded hacking could be in contempt, “if it can be shown to have interfered with the work of the house or to have impeded or obstructed an MP from taking part in such work”. That might result in fines being levied in exceptional circumstances, MPs said. The committee added that in the vast majority of cases MPs who believe they have been victims of phone hacking should pursue the matter through the courts. Former culture secretary Tessa Jowell is one of more than half a dozen public figures who are suing either the Metropolitan police or the News of the World for breach of privacy, alleging journalists on the paper worked with a private investigator to illegally access their mobile phone messages. Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for Rhondda, has said “at least eight” MPs had their mobile phone voicemails hacked by the paper. MPs passed a motion tabled by Bryant in September asking the cross-party committee to urgently consider whether hacking could be considered to be in contempt of parliament. In their report, MPs said it was not within the committee’s remit to consider the law surrounding hacking, which is currently the subject of a separate inquiry being carried out by the home affairs select committee. But it said that if it was proved that hacking “impede[d] a member in the performance of his or her duty … there would be little if any room for doubt that hacking could be a contempt”. It added that the house did not have the power or resources to investigate hacking and that this was a matter for the police. Members should notify the police if they suspected an offence had taken place, it said. MPs recommended that a privileges bill due to go through parliament later this year should include a description of what constitutes contempt, which is currently not clearly defined. The committee also said parliament’s power of imprisonment should be removed in the bill but it should retain the right to reprimand offenders in person and levy fines. “The imposition of a fine, where justified by the facts and by the circumstances, is more consistent with modern practice and would be more likely to be proportionate to an offence such as hacking”. • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers News of the World News International Tessa Jowell House of Commons House of Lords James Robinson guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …