Electrical store’s announcement is latest indicator of a major fall in consumer confidence Fresh evidence of a major fall in consumer confidence emerged on Wednesday as Dixons issued a profit warning after suffering a sharp drop in UK sales. The VAT rise and government cuts were both to blame, the electrical retailer said, as it admitted that like-for-like sales had decreased by 11% in UK and Ireland in the last 11 weeks. Profits for the year to the end of April will be about £85m rather than the £105m analysts had expected. The group is also considering pulling out of Spain, putting 1,200 jobs at risk. Shares in the company plunged 11% as investors digested the poor trading update. Chief executive John Browett said the launch of the second generation iPad had been one bright spot in the last 11 weeks, selling out in stores in two hours, but other areas were struggling: “We know that people are a little bit worried until the public expenditure cuts are confirmed.” Browett suggested the VAT rise in January had been significant. Like-for-like sales were down just 4% over the last 13 weeks, incorporating the two weeks before VAT went up, suggesting customers bought big-ticket items before the tax hike. The bad news at Dixons came after Thomas Cook’s warning yesterday that UK demand for foreign holidays had dropped sharply and official figures showed the first fall in real household disposable income for 30 years . Dixons said: “At the time of the group’s trading statement in January, trading conditions were expected to remain difficult through the first half of the year, with consumer sentiment improving as we moved towards Christmas 2011. However, with consumer confidence even weaker than expected like-for-like sales in the 11 weeks to 26 March 2011 are down 11% in the UK and Ireland. In this more challenging trading environment, the business has focused on cash gross profits and has held gross margins flat year on year.” It added that the low levels of consumer confidence were likely to continue. “With continuing pressure on household budgets, it is difficult to see a significant improvement in this pattern of trading in the short term and the group is now planning on the basis that the consumer environment remains relatively subdued and that the electricals market overall shows a modest decline in the group’s 2011-12 financial year.” Dixons Retail Retail industry Recession Economics Profit warnings Alex Hawkes guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Labour leader announces that he and his partner will marry in a civil ceremony in front of about 50 guests at a country house hotel near Nottingham on 27 May The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and his partner, Justine Thornton, are to get married on 27 May, the couple announced today. The pair, who have been together for six years and have two sons, made the announcement to the Doncaster Free Press , the local newspaper in Miliband’s constituency. Miliband, 41, and 40-year-old Thornton will marry in a civil ceremony in front of around 50 guests at the Langar Hall country house hotel near Nottingham, close to the bride’s childhood home. Ed’s brother, David, whom he defeated for the Labour leadership, would be among the guests, the paper added. However, he will not be best man as Ed has opted to do without the role. Some newspapers and conservative social critics have condemned the pair for setting a poor example by having two children outside of marriage – Daniel, 21 months, and Samuel, four months – particularly after Miliband said he had simply been “too busy” for a wedding. The couple told the paper that they had agreed a year ago they would get married. Thornton said: “Ed wasn’t even an MP when I met him and at the end of the day I am marrying him because of who he is and not because of what he’s doing now. We’re planning on a small ceremony, all at the hotel with everything at the same place and we’re looking forward to it very much.” Miliband said: “This is going to be a fantastic day for us both and I feel incredibly privileged to be marrying someone so beautiful and who is such a special person. It’s the right time for us to do this and I’m really looking forward to a lovely day.” He added: “At the end of the day we’re in our 40s and we’ve got two kids – so it wasn’t a case of me suddenly popping the question. This is just something we think is right for us.” While he was doing without a best man, Miliband said he had not ruled out a “low key” stag night. The ceremony will come just less than a month after Prince William marries Kate Middleton, and will be a notable contrast for its small scale and relative lack of convention. Ed Miliband Labour Marriage Peter Walker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Potential liability in the ten-year-old case could reach into billions of dollars Conservative judges on the US supreme court sharply challenged lawyers attempting to bring the biggest sex discrimination case in history as a key hearing on the case got underway in Washington. The court’s justices are set to decide by June whether lawyers representing potentially more than a million women employed by Walmart can bring a class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit against the retail giant. Their decision looks set to redefine discrimination cases in the US. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate conservative, and Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative judge, questioned the basis of the case. Kennedy said Walmart’s record on pay and promotion was better than the US average. “I’m just not sure what the unlawful policy is,” he said. The potentially liability in the case could reach billions of dollars. The suit began nearly 10 years ago when it was originally filed on behalf of employee Betty Dukes and five of her co-workers. Walmart is appealing an earlier court’s decision to let the case go to trial. Joseph Sellers, a lawyer representing the women, said Walmart, owner of Asda in the UK, has a corporate culture that stereotypes women and that has led to discrimination in pay and promotion. “These decisions are informed by the values the company provides,” Sellers said. He added that earlier courts had been persuaded by this argument and a wealth of statistical evidence that there was a class action case to be answered. Scalia attacked Sellers position, saying he was “whipsawed” by the argument that either individual managers are on their own, “or else a strong corporate culture tells them what to do”. “Which is it?” he asked. Legal expert Stuart Slotnick of New York law firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney said it was too early to tell which way the judges would vote but it was clear that the statistical element in the case was “causing concerns”. “Statistics alone seem to be troubling for the courts,” he said. “There needs to be other evidence than a mathematical analysis of pay scales.” He said evidence, such as testimony from employees about a sexist corporate culture or a policy of discrimination, would bolster the case. The plaintiffs were given some support by justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an expert on sex discrimination law. She said the issue being decided was whether the case has enough evidence to proceed and not if discrimination could be immediately proven. “We’re talking about getting a foot in the door,” Ginsburg said. Wal-Mart denies discrimination. Lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr told the court: “There is absolutely no way there can be a fair process.” He said it was impossible for the company to defend its treatment of such a massive number of people when they worked at thousands of different stores and in many different jobs. Outside the crowd protesters gathered shouting “Fair pay now” and carrying signs such as “Stop discounting the women of Wal-Mart” and “The women of Wal-Mart are not worthless”.” Walmart Retail industry United States Washington DC US supreme court Dominic Rushe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
US department of education says school violated federal law in waiting too long to warn students about campus gunman Virginia Tech will have to pay the maximum $55,000 (£34,000) fine for waiting too long to notify students during the 2007 shooting rampage , the US department of education has announced. Officials told the university the sanction should have been greater for the school’s slow response to the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history, when student Cho Seung-hui shot and killed 32 students and members of faculty, then himself. The $55,000 fine was the most the department could levy for the school’s two violations of the federal Clery Act, which requires timely reporting of crimes on campus. “While Virginia Tech’s violations warrant a fine far in excess of what is currently permissible under the statute, the Department’s fine authority is limited,” wrote Mary Gust, director of a departmental panel that dictated what punishment the school would receive. However, Virginia Tech avoided the potentially devastating punishment of losing some or all of its $98m in federal student aid. University officials have always maintained their innocence and said they would appeal against the fine, even though it’s a relatively small sum for a school of more than 30,000 full-time students and an annual budget of $1.1bn. The amount would cover tuition and fees for one Virginia undergraduate student for four years, or two years for an out-of-state undergraduate. “We believe that Virginia Tech administrators acted appropriately in their response to the tragic events of April 16, 2007, based on the best information then available to them at the time,” spokesman Larry Hincker said in a statement. The Clery Act requires colleges and universities that receive federal student financial aid to report crimes and security policies and provide warning of campus threats. The education department issued its final report in December, finding that Virginia Tech failed to issue a timely warning to the Blacksburg campus after Cho shot and killed two students in a dormitory early that morning. The university sent out an email to the campus more than two hours later, about the time Cho was chaining shut the doors to a classroom building where he killed 30 more students and faculty, then himself. That email was too vague, the department said, because it referred only to a “shooting incident” but did not mention anyone had died. By the time a second, more explicit warning was sent, Cho was near the end of his shooting spree. “Had an appropriate timely warning been sent earlier to the campus community, more individuals could have acted on the information and made decisions about their own safety,” the department said. A state commission that investigated the shootings also found that the university erred by failing to notify the campus sooner. The state reached an $11m settlement with many of the victims’ families. Two families have sued and are seeking $10m in damages from university officials. That case is set for trial this autumn. Virginia Tech shooting Gun crime United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …US department of education says school violated federal law in waiting too long to warn students about campus gunman Virginia Tech will have to pay the maximum $55,000 (£34,000) fine for waiting too long to notify students during the 2007 shooting rampage , the US department of education has announced. Officials told the university the sanction should have been greater for the school’s slow response to the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history, when student Cho Seung-hui shot and killed 32 students and members of faculty, then himself. The $55,000 fine was the most the department could levy for the school’s two violations of the federal Clery Act, which requires timely reporting of crimes on campus. “While Virginia Tech’s violations warrant a fine far in excess of what is currently permissible under the statute, the Department’s fine authority is limited,” wrote Mary Gust, director of a departmental panel that dictated what punishment the school would receive. However, Virginia Tech avoided the potentially devastating punishment of losing some or all of its $98m in federal student aid. University officials have always maintained their innocence and said they would appeal against the fine, even though it’s a relatively small sum for a school of more than 30,000 full-time students and an annual budget of $1.1bn. The amount would cover tuition and fees for one Virginia undergraduate student for four years, or two years for an out-of-state undergraduate. “We believe that Virginia Tech administrators acted appropriately in their response to the tragic events of April 16, 2007, based on the best information then available to them at the time,” spokesman Larry Hincker said in a statement. The Clery Act requires colleges and universities that receive federal student financial aid to report crimes and security policies and provide warning of campus threats. The education department issued its final report in December, finding that Virginia Tech failed to issue a timely warning to the Blacksburg campus after Cho shot and killed two students in a dormitory early that morning. The university sent out an email to the campus more than two hours later, about the time Cho was chaining shut the doors to a classroom building where he killed 30 more students and faculty, then himself. That email was too vague, the department said, because it referred only to a “shooting incident” but did not mention anyone had died. By the time a second, more explicit warning was sent, Cho was near the end of his shooting spree. “Had an appropriate timely warning been sent earlier to the campus community, more individuals could have acted on the information and made decisions about their own safety,” the department said. A state commission that investigated the shootings also found that the university erred by failing to notify the campus sooner. The state reached an $11m settlement with many of the victims’ families. Two families have sued and are seeking $10m in damages from university officials. That case is set for trial this autumn. Virginia Tech shooting Gun crime United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Competition Commission rules the Spanish-owned company must sell Stansted and one of its Scottish airports BAA has suffered a setback in its attempt to maintain its dominant hold on the UK air travel sector, after the Competition Commission ruled that it must still sell two of its airports. The Competition Commission announced on Wednesday that BAA must find a buyer for Stansted, and for either Edinburgh or Glasgow airport. It said passengers and airlines would benefit from the move. The decision comes two years after the commission first ruled that the UK air travel industry would benefit from BAA’s break-up – a decision the company hoped to overturn. In a statement, the commisison said it had “provisionally concluded that the sale of the airports is fully justified and that passengers and airlines would still benefit from greater competition with the airports under separate ownership”. BAA, which has already sold Gatwick for £1.5bn, had argued that further sales were not needed as the government had blocked expansion at Heathrow. The group, owned by Spanish conglomerage Ferrovial, said it was considering its next move. Selling two more airports would help the company to cut its debt pile. “We believe that there has been a material change in circumstances since the commission’s report was published in March 2009,” BAA said. In October 2010, the court of appeal ruled in favour of the commission’s findings following an appeal by BAA. The commission said BAA must sell Stansted first, as passengers would benefit most from its new ownership. “There now appears to be greater capacity available which will increase the potential for competition between the London airports. The introduction of new ownership at Gatwick, whilst too recent for us to base any conclusions on, has also given a foretaste of the benefits competition can bring,” said Peter Freeman, chairman of the commission. BAA Travel & leisure Transport Transport policy Air transport Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Competition Commission rules the Spanish-owned company must sell Stansted and one of its Scottish airports BAA has suffered a setback in its attempt to maintain its dominant hold on the UK air travel sector, after the Competition Commission ruled that it must still sell two of its airports. The Competition Commission announced on Wednesday that BAA must find a buyer for Stansted, and for either Edinburgh or Glasgow airport. It said passengers and airlines would benefit from the move. The decision comes two years after the commission first ruled that the UK air travel industry would benefit from BAA’s break-up – a decision the company hoped to overturn. In a statement, the commisison said it had “provisionally concluded that the sale of the airports is fully justified and that passengers and airlines would still benefit from greater competition with the airports under separate ownership”. BAA, which has already sold Gatwick for £1.5bn, had argued that further sales were not needed as the government had blocked expansion at Heathrow. The group, owned by Spanish conglomerage Ferrovial, said it was considering its next move. Selling two more airports would help the company to cut its debt pile. “We believe that there has been a material change in circumstances since the commission’s report was published in March 2009,” BAA said. In October 2010, the court of appeal ruled in favour of the commission’s findings following an appeal by BAA. The commission said BAA must sell Stansted first, as passengers would benefit most from its new ownership. “There now appears to be greater capacity available which will increase the potential for competition between the London airports. The introduction of new ownership at Gatwick, whilst too recent for us to base any conclusions on, has also given a foretaste of the benefits competition can bring,” said Peter Freeman, chairman of the commission. BAA Travel & leisure Transport Transport policy Air transport Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Think of all the militant anti-war types who were thrilled at the removal of the Bush “war machine” in 2008, only to see President Obama’s strained endorsement of military action in Libya. Oh, how the political wave of the hard left has crashed ashore. It seems like only yesterday when they were celebrating Cindy Sheehan as she flagrantly called President Bush “the biggest terrorist in the world.” Then they elected Obama and it all went to Hell. Over the last two years, these chagrined radicals have watched in stunned disbelief while their hero Obama continued the Iraq war wrap-up on the generals’ timeline and then added more troops in Afghanistan. They listened in shock as Team Obama announced it was reversing itself on indefinite detentions at Guantanamo. And now he’s started his very own kinetic military action. Where are our friends in the press? They must be wondering. The media’s said nothing about Iraq for them, nothing about Afghanistan. Virtually nothing about the Gitmo flip-flop. And now they’re pro-war in Libya. Were these journalists ever “anti-war”? Or was all that coverage of George W. Bush as a Constitution-shredding global embarrassment just a convenient partisan campaign? If the No War for Oil crowd thought the run-up to war in Iraq featured a docile media, how on Earth must they feel about the docility of the press as Obama started dropping bombs on Libya? Someone pass the smelling salts. It’s pure and simple: The re-election of Barack Obama trumps all. The news media will bury anything negative that threatens his return in 2013. The media know full well that Obama’s refusal to obtain congressional approval is a flat-out betrayal, and a documentation of a lie. The media have the footage of Candidate Obama in 2007: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” The media also know (then-) presidential candidate Joe Biden said he’d personally lead the impeachment if Bush went to war with Iran without a congressional vote. Some in the print press found this, like Washington Post “fact checker” Glenn Kessler. But had this been Bush exercising such brazen dishonesty, it would have been the lead story on every TV network news program – for days. But it was Obama and Biden who lied through their teeth and nothing will interfere with Obama-Biden in 2012 . Like their Democrat friends, Harry “The War is Lost” Reid and Nancy “Iraq Was a Grotesque Mistake” Pelosi, our media were the loyal opposition in the Bush years. It is astonishing to see them so shamefully switch their talking points so quickly and robotically – perhaps as quickly and robotically as General Obama. Exhibit A is former Washington Post defense reporter Thomas Ricks. Five years ago, he wrote an Iraq book with the title “Fiasco.” That tome was touted as “a searing judgment on the strategic blindness” of Bush’s war. In his book, Ricks even trashed Democrats. They were not doves but “lambs” for their failure to oversee the excesses of the executive branch. So who is this lobotomized Tom Ricks who showed up on “Meet the Press” on March 27? This man put on rose-colored glasses and magically transformed himself into Mr. Best-Case Scenario. NBC’s David Gregory asked: If Gaddafi stays, can we really say “Mission accomplished”? Ricks didn’t hesitate. “Yes. I think what they'll say is we gave it a chance. All Obama is saying is give war a chance,” Ricks proclaimed. “Not our war. All we did was kick the door down, let the Brits and the French and the others do it. And I think his notion is we're going to be out of there long before this is resolved. That's the hope. That's the best-case scenario.” As one of Obama’s media “lambs,” Ricks also insisted that if there are Islamic extremists among the Libyan rebels, that’s okay, since they seem to like us right now. “I don't think that all Islamic extremists are necessarily our enemy.
Continue reading …The hits just keep on coming. I bring to you the Evil Republican Governor Chronicles, Florida edition. TBO.com : Give Rick Scott sole authority to appoint Florida judges A move to restructure the Florida court system, giving more power in choosing judges to Gov. Rick Scott, moved forward in the state House Thursday despite objections that the bills are an attempt to take control of the state judiciary. The House Civil Justice Committee passed the three bills Thursday afternoon, all opposed by the committee’s five Democrats and backed by its 10 Republicans, including Shawn Harrison of Tampa. Other committee stops and action by the full House and Senate would be needed to pass them. They are: •An amendment to break the state Supreme Court in two, one court for criminal cases and one for civil cases, adding three justices so each would have five. An amendment to abolish the judicial nominating commissions that submit nominees for appeals court and Supreme Court justices. The governor would then have sole power to name justices, but the state Senate would have to confirm them. Proponents said it models the federal process for naming justices. A bill not requiring an amendment that gives the governor sole power to appoint all members of the judicial nominating commissions that submit nominees for trial court seats . (h/t BeachPeanuts ) These initiatives would have to be approved by 60% of Florida voters. Rest assured they will be framed in such a way that it will sound like a great idea. Just as great as electing this man governor in the first place. Don’t be fooled by the GOP claim that it increases efficiency. This move is retaliatory, in response to the Florida court upholding the November redistricting initiative that takes control out of the hands of the politicians and puts it in the hands of a citizen panel. They hate that. As to the splitting of the court and adding a few justices, I think they call that “court stacking”. When FDR contemplated it conservatives screamed like piggy boys. Now they think it’s just a fantastic idea down there in Florida. And wait, there’s more, thanks to Joy Ann Reid at the Reid Report . In Florida, Felonious Monk (A/K/A Rick Scott) is serving up a policy of mandatory, random drug tests for all state employees reporting to the executive branch (as well as anyone receiving public assistance) that will serve the twin purposes of humliating and demonizing the state workers Republicans so despise, while also potentially lining his pockets by pushing tens of thousands of new custormers to the chain of walk-in clinics he has temporarily signed over to his wife . However, Scott’s push could very well be … wait for it … illegal. Besides the fact that Joy-Ann’s post exposes the naked greed and powerlust in Florida, I had to share it just because the name Felonious Monk fits Scott so well. Well, doesn’t it?
Continue reading …
Man arrested in London as investigation is launched into hoax device placed on UPS flight to Istanbul An investigation has been launched into how a fake bomb was transported on a cargo plane from the UK, just five months after the discovery of cargo-hold bombs was supposed to have boosted security. A 26-year-old man was arrested at his home last week suspected of a bomb hoax, police said. He was taken to a north London police station and, bailed to return in May. The Met confirmed that they had searched an address in north London and the incident was not terrorist-related. The suspicious device had apparently been stowed on a UPS flight two weeks ago and travelled to Turkey undetected. The Department for Transport said it was taking the matter “very seriously”. A Turkish man delivered the package, consisting of a timer, wires and detonator inside a wedding cake box, to a UPS office in north London, a Turkish source told ITV News. It was only discovered after a security screening in Istanbul. Last October, packages containing explosive material hidden in printer ink cartridges sent from Yemen to the US sparked a global terror alert. One was discovered during a routine stop at East Midlands airport in the UK, and the other was found in Dubai. Both contained the high explosive PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate). Police said they had been timed to detonate over the eastern seaboard of the United States. At the time, it was promised that airports in the UK would improve their cargo screening. The Department for Transport said yesterday: “The government is aware of this incident and takes it very seriously. We have already begun an investigation which will look at all aspects of this incident, including UPS’s procedures. The UK has one of the toughest security regimes for air cargo in the world. All security measures are subject to continuous review.” A UPS spokeswoman said: “Two weeks ago, a suspicious package travelled within the UPS network aboard an all-cargo aircraft from the United Kingdom to Istanbul, Turkey. “UPS is co-operating with the UK Department for Transport’s investigation of the incident. UPS has a multiple-layered approach to ensure security.” Last year, a device found at Windhoek airport in Namibia turned out to have been made in the US to test security. German security experts said it was most likely that either US or African authorities had been behind the test. It is believed that over the years the US transport security administration has carried out multiple tests using undercover agents to put dummy bombs through security scanners at US airports. Crime UK security and terrorism Global terrorism Cargo plane bomb plot Jonathan Paige guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …