Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1615)
A clean break: surfing in Senegal

Despite world-class waves, the beaches around Dakar are still little known and uncrowded – the perfect spot for a surfing safari How do surfers say “wax” in Italian? “Wax” replies Marta Imarisio, the Turin-born cofounder of the Senegalese surfers’ hostel, Malika Surf Camp, as she rubs a bar of wax on to her boards, preparing them for the sparkling waves of Yoff beach on the outskirts of Dakar. “Rail to rail, nose to tail,” she says, covering the upper side of the board with the stuff, before striding back to her beachside lock-up to pull out more gear. “Wax” is also “wax” for surfers who speak Senegal’s official language – French – as well as for those who converse in the country’s many other local vernaculars. Yet this linguistic universality doesn’t make surf wax much easier to buy. While Dakar’s only boarders’ boutique, Tribal Surf Shop ( tribalsurfshop.net ), may intermittently stock surf wax, Marta and co tend to rely on friends abroad to send supplies on a regular, charitable basis, eking it out with a little thrift and elbow grease. The same goes for wetsuits, rash vests and leashes. Locally, equipment is hard to acquire and, when it is for sale, expensive even

Continue reading …
.xxx adult domain name approved

Icann’s governing body gives green light to new suffix that will enable creation of web-based red light district Plans to establish a new internet domain specifically for pornography are to proceed after internet regulators approved the .xxx suffix for adult entertainment sites, three years on from a decision to block the move. Proposals to create a new adults-only domain date back as far as 2003 when moves to open up the number of major domain names were announced by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), which administers millions of internet addresses. However, Icann blocked the plan in 2007 after long deliberations and threats in the US from the Bush government, which opposed the creation of .xxx on moral grounds and said it would override Icann if necessary. On Friday, the board of Icann said that it would allow the .xxx domain to be overseen by ICM Registry – the backer of the scheme – although a number of board members reportedly opposed the resolution. The backers of the scheme said that it will provide reassurance to those visiting pornography websites that they are protected from the risk of viruses, identity theft, credit card fraud and inadvertent exposure to child abuse images. They also claim that it will provide individuals and parents who wish to avoid adult entertainment sites the opportunity to filter out unwanted .xxx material. Anti-pornography campaigners argued that the move legitimises the sex industry, and it also drew criticism from some parts of the adult entertainment business, who said that forcing sex sites into a specific corner of the internet would inevitably increase censorship. PCmag.com reported that one Icann board member who opposed the resolution said that .xxx would encourage filtering and, ultimately, censorship. “I believe that the creation of .xxx would mark the first instance of an action by this board that may directly encourage such filtering,” said George Sadowsky, a US computer scientist. “In my judgment, the board should not be taking actions that encourage filtering or blocking of a domain at the top level. Further, I believe that the filtering of so-called offensive material can provide a convenient excuse for political regimes interested in an intent on limiting civic rights and freedom of speech.” Stuart Lawley, CEO of ICM Registry, described the decision as a “landmark moment” for the internet. “For the first time there will be a clearly defined web address for adult entertainment, out of the reach of minors and as free as possible from fraud or malicious computer viruses,” he added. According to a statement released by ICM Registry, the new domain name will be regulated by IFFOR, which was described as an independent non-profit entity made up of a seven-person policy council, including a child protection representative, a privacy and security expert and representatives from the pornography industry. Internet Pornography United States Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Marsha Blackburn Defends Defunding NPR and Helping the GOP to Assure the Public is as Uninformed as Possible

Click here to view this media Rep. Marsha Blackburn took to the House floor this Thursday during the debate over NPR’s government funding and she basically laid out their game plan for rural areas that are going to be harmed by these cuts — let them start over with new programming instead of airing NPR’s content. Anyone else think that content that will be replaced by anything other than the equivalent of Fox “News” and right wing talk? And she also took a shot at NPR’s listeners who are apparently all rich, latte drinking snobby liberals who should be able to afford to keep the network on the air on their own… unless of course you consider those rural areas that are going to be hit the hardest by these cuts. House Republicans continually cited the discredited tapes from James O’Keefe as a reason to cut off funding for the network during the debate and also pretended that this was done out of some deep concern for our budget deficit woes, even though they haven’t expressed similar concerns for busting the budget with illegal invasions that weren’t even put on the books or tax cuts for the rich. Blackburn’s assertion that they did this because they have one iota of concern for the budget deficit is laughable. As the Democrats continually pointed out during the House floor debate, this was done purely for ideological reasons and nothing else. They want our public fed a steady stream of right wing propaganda and dumbed down with as little access to news that isn’t influenced by their agenda as possible, and this is just one more step in assuring that happens. I’d say that Blackburn and her ilk should be ashamed of themselves for this, but they’ve long ago proven that they just have no shame.

Continue reading …
Rachel Maddow: What Survival Looks Like

Click here to view this media This video, shot in real time as the tsunami rolled into Sendai, is amazing. There’s not much to add to it other than amazement that anyone had the presence of mind to keep the video on while running from a wall of water. If you don’t get chills when they’re in the stairwell, well…I don’t believe you. I think you did get chills.

Continue reading …
Democrat Congressman Wants to ‘Defund’ Fox News

The Left's panic concerning the defunding of NPR has become quite comical in recent days. Take for example Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) who took to the House floor Thursday and said, “If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to strip funding from NPR because they believe — wrongly, in my view — that NPR is biased, then we should be given the same opportunity” and prevent taxpayer dollars from being used for advertising “on the partisan political platform of Fox News” (video follows with commentary): According to FoxNews.com: McGovern cited a Rand Study that found the federal government subsidizes media companies all the time and that the Pentagon alone spent more than $600 million in advertising in 2007. McGovern did not cite any studies or statistics on how much federal advertising money is spent on Fox News. He did not return requests for comment submitted by FoxNews.com. So let's think about this logically. Pentagon advertising is likely to recruit military members, correct? And members of our armed forces tend to be more conservative than the general public. With this in mind, regardless of the actual dollars involved, it would make sense for the Department of Defense to want to advertise on a right-leaning news outlet. If McGovern's amendment had cleared the House Rules Committee – which it didn't – and had been approved by the House and the Senate, we'd be needlessly hampering military recruitment efforts as a silly quid pro quo for NPR. With regard to other federal government ads, these are likely from various agencies and departments such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Postal Service for example. Should Fox viewers have such announcements withheld from them because the network slants in the same political direction as they do? If so, then shouldn't the government be prohibited from doing any advertising since every media outlet has a bias? It doesn't appear that McGovern and his staff have thoroughly thought through all of the ramifications of this silly proposal, does it?

Continue reading …
Barack Obama to visit City of God

US president expected to visit shantytown that inspired film as part of bridge-building tour of Latin America When the world’s most powerful man touches down in Rio this weekend he will receive a handwritten letter from a man called José. “To his excellency, the president of the republic of the United States of America,” it will read. “Felicitations for the happy idea of coming to see our great nation and above all the City of God. Signed, José Neves.” Neves is an 80-year-old community leader from the City of God, a shantytown in western Rio de Janeiro which gave its name to Fernando Meirelles’s 2002 blockbuster movie. And on Sunday he is expecting a visit from Barack Obama, who is tipped to visit the favela as part of a five-day bridge-building tour of Latin America intended to bolster the US’s shrinking regional influence against an economic and diplomatic offensive from China. After visiting the favela, Obama is scheduled to make a speech in central Rio, before continuing on to Chile and El Salvador. Obama will call for a rapprochement between Brasilia and Washington, a partnership that soured because of ties between Brazil’s former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. With Lula in power, western diplomats in Brasilia described an Obama visit as virtually inconceivable. Brazil’s new president, Dilma Rousseff, who took power in January, appears open to reconciliation. In a rare post-election interview with the Washington Post she vowed to “try to forge closer ties with the US” and spoke out against human rights abuses in Iran. Neves, a retired policeman and proud Afro-Brazilian, will need little convincing. In his ground-floor office in Bible Square, rumoured to be on Obama’s itinerary, he keeps a giant US flag. “I followed [Obama's] election on TV – for the first time a black man took a step up,” he beamed. “We’ll be glad to receive him. He is president of a great nation that is our friend.” The US is no longer the only great nation in town. Recent years have seen the Chinese make big strides into Latin America – China overtook the US as Brazil’s top trade partner in 2009 and is pouring billions into oil, mining, infrastructure and agriculture to secure access to its natural resources. In Washington, alarm bells are ringing. US officials deny the visit is directly intended to counter the Chinese advance but White House adviser Ben Rhodes admitted it was “imperative that the United States [did] not disengage from these regions”. “There’s a cost to disengagement,” he said. Daniel Restrepo, Obama’s leading adviser on Latin America, said the trip would highlight “the importance of the region” and “the restoration of American influence and appeal in the Americas”. For Rio’s governors the visit represents a marketing coup as they battle to revive the city’s international reputation as a safe, business-friendly metropolis. The City of God is one of more than 20 favelas that have been “pacified” in a security initiative aimed at driving heavily armed drug traffickers from the slums before the 2016 Rio Olympics. “It was terrible before,” Neves recalled. “The kids would come out of school and they would all be stood there with shotguns and revolvers. Obama wouldn’t have even considered coming to the City of God back then.” Even now, he is taking no chances. Obama will reportedly travel to the favela in a missile and gas-proof Cadillac, flanked by special forces operatives. A no-fly zone will be imposed by the Brazilian air force. Neves said he had even spotted “the FBI” inspecting his favela. “They are big,” he whispered. “And very strong.” Barack Obama Brazil US foreign policy Tom Phillips guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

New York Communities for Change on Vimeo . Humanity’s literature from the very earliest days has many stories of hubris and arrogance that ring true. Icarus got too close to the sun, and had his wings burned off. Goliath got a little too cocky with the kid with the slingshot. Lady Macbeth’s dreams of glory turned to ashes. Pride goeth before the fall indeed. It happens in literature so much because it happens to humans so much. In my career in politics, I have seen it happen over and over again, from the highest of levels to the ones you’ve never heard of, like the 26-year-old junior staffer at the Clinton White House I once heard yelling into the phone “Don’t you know who I am?” who was fired shortly after. There are plenty of arrogant politicians walking around D.C. today bragging about everything they are going to do that I suspect won’t be here very much longer. But there is no match at all for the hubris of Wall Street bankers. They are convinced they really are masters of the universe, but I think they will be heading for a fall. It may be soon, it might take a little while given the money they have and the politicians in their pocket, but you cannot be that arrogant and not be in for a serious fall. Just to recap: the financial industry talked politician after politician from both parties into one round of deregulation after another, all the while increasingly consolidating the industry while inventing more and more exotic kinds of financial speculation (derivatives, credit default swaps, CDOs, etc., etc., ad nauseam). There were warning signs aplenty- the S&L debacle, Long-Term Capital Management, an early version of a subprime derivative collapse, the Mexico currency collapse, the Thai currency collapse, the corporate accounting scandals of the early 2000s — and each time some combination of the Federal Reserve and/or American taxpayers directly had to step in and save the day. The warning signs were not only ignored, but more deregulation usually happened on top of the old kinds. When the big collapse happened in 2008, the American economy and entire world economy were sent into collapse and panic, only to be saved by the biggest corporate bailouts in history by far. Now you may find me biased, but this essential summary as far as I can tell seems to be pretty much accepted by just about every author on the financial collapse, financial blogger and reporter, the Angelides commission, the TARP oversight board: pretty much everyone who has looked into the collapse except those being paid by Wall Street bankers. And given all that, you would think the corporate PR guys for these big banks would be advising their clients to lay low for a while, make a show of how badly they felt, do at least some symbolic belt-tightening and some early retirements for the most visibly corrupt executives, maybe make some major donations to charities. On Capitol Hill, you would think the lobbyists they hire would advise them to show some amount of humility at congressional hearings, to make clear in their public statements that they totally understand the need for some “modernization” of regulations (even while fighting to soften the blow behind the scenes as much as possible), and to make sure their longtime allies on the Hill know they didn’t need to spend a lot of political capital right now defending them — that the best strategy was to quiet things down and delay or soften things, not to make a lot of noise. But the Wall Street guys are so arrogant, so completely used to running the world and having everyone bow down to them, that they just fundamentally don’t get it. They give themselves record setting bonuses the year after taxpayers bailed them out. They fought every minor restraint on their power in the battle over financial reform last year, and now their Capitol Hill allies are planning to re-open the whole battle again with new legislation rolling back key components of the bill like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, derivative regulation, and swipe-fee regulation. They get their allies on the Hill to beat up on Elizabeth Warren because she is actually trying to help consumers. They bitterly and loudly complained to reporters and anyone who would listen about President Obama saying a few mildly populist about them during the financial reform fight last year, even though Obama’s Treasury Secretary and most of his other appointees have been fairly friendly to bankers throughout his term in office. They complain about the moral hazard of helping homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages despite taking the bailout money when their own bets went bad. But these remarkably arrogant folks are setting themselves up for a fall. Anger has been building against Wall Street bankers for years, and banks are consistently listed in polls as the most unpopular institutions in America. The movement against them is growing every day with demonstrations and move-our-money kind of actions by everyone from local governments to churches to foundations. A great new report just came out of a group of California organizations on the incredible cost of all the foreclosures the banks are doing right now. Bloggers are doing a remarkable job in documenting all the illegal actions banks have been taking in terms of foreclosures and fraud in general. Check out this powerful piece on crimes committed by bank executives by naked capitalism. Activists are demanding that they actually start paying taxes on their ill-gotten gains. Lawyers are filing case after case against banks for committing fraud in the foreclosure, and the banks have been losing a lot of those cases in court. Ministers are even doing exorcisms of the banks . The other key thing to note is that it is not just progressive activists who are getting upset with the bankers: a lot of small businesspeople are being gauged by swipe fees, or left out in the cold in terms of getting loans because bankers would rather hoard their money or use it to speculate on derivative markets. Investors who have gotten screwed by the big banks are increasingly looking to file lawsuits. State and local officials are pushing back more and more against abusive bankers. Wall Street bankers are looking around at all these activities and laughing, assuring themselves that no one can touch them because they are so rich and so powerful. But sooner or later, guys, what goes around will come around. Here’s just one example: if they want to bring up the financial reform issue again in Congress, just remember that the bill last year just got stronger every time it went to the floor because nobody wanted to vote against amendments that were tough on Wall Street banks. If you want to get into a floor fight, reformers will be happy to start offering amendments all over again, and we’ll see what we can get passed. You don’t like the derivatives regulations? Well, our side thinks they need to be tougher. You don’t like the CFPB? Well, we think they need more power. You don’t like debit card rules? Well, let’s expand them to credit cards as well. We can win a lot of these floor fights because it is pretty easy right now to argue against bankers; it’s what we call in my political consulting business a resonant message. But this isn’t just about the next legislative fight. Grassroots anger at the banks continues to build, and the more arrogant the Wall Street guys act, the more angry people will get. Their own hubris will bring them down quicker than Icarus fell from the sky. If I were a strategist for the Wall Street bankers right now, I’d sure be encouraging them to read some mythology and Shakespeare — and a few lessons from scripture probably would do them some good as well.

Continue reading …
Films still stereotype people – study

Older females portrayed as sexless while homosexuals and ethnic minorities also suffer, says extensive survey of opinion Films are perpetuating harmful and out-of-date sexual, racial and gender stereotypes, according to the biggest-ever study of its kind into cinema audiences’ opinions. Of 4,315 adults across the UK who were surveyed, a clear majority believe cinema too often falls back on discredited stereotypes, including sexless older women, drug dealing, oversexualised black people and gay people whose lives are dominated by their sexuality. Almost two-thirds of those questioned believe older women are “significantly underrepresented” in films. They are rarely portrayed as sexual beings and are, generally, only given marginal roles, according to the findings, published exclusively in the Guardian today. Respondents said film-makers needed to try harder to create films which authentically reflected their lives. “The film industry is made up of small companies who work in an isolated fashion. They don’t have the money to carry out the research into who their audiences are and what those audiences want: that’s what this survey is for,” said Mary FitzPatrick, head of diversity at the UK Film Council, which commissioned the research. The survey results pointed to Meryl Streep in Mamma Mia! as a positive example of an older woman shown embracing life. Characters such as Dame Judi Dench in Notes on a Scandal, however, were criticised for being too negative. “Contrary to what one would expect, older women are increasingly comfortable with the ‘cougar’ image: they feel it signifies renewed interest and admiration for this age group,” said Steve Evans, research director of Harris Interactive and author of the report, pointing to Melissa Leo, who won the supporting-actress Academy Award for her role as a domineering matriarch in The Fighter. But Ariel Levy, author of Female Chauvinist Pigs, said the structure of films made it “almost impossible” to show nuanced, accurate portrayals of women. “Films are very formulaic and straitjacketed,” she said. “Films are fairytales that, unless they have an unusually politically astute and creatively imaginative director, need to fall back on often insulting gender and racial archetypes to generate the energy necessary in the short amount of time they have.” Shirley Conran, author of Superwoman, said she had long given up expecting films to portray older women in anything other than a “grotesque” way. She agreed with Levy that the problem was inherent in the film industry. “They always say there are no good parts for women but there are lots of stories with great female characters. I have written some of them myself, and had them optioned by film companies,” she said. “The problem is that the money men won’t let those films get made because they underestimate audiences.” The study, Portrayal vs Betrayal?, also found half the population believe black characters are too often portrayed as drug dealers in films. Two in five say black characters don’t get enough “good guy” roles, while one in three say black people are too often portrayed as being overly sexual. This view is felt even more intensely by the black community itself: four out of five members of the black audience say black characters are too often portrayed as drug dealers. Three out of four say they are not portrayed positively enough. Two out of three say they are too often shown as overly sexual. This is England attracted particular criticism as “irresponsible film-making that suggests racism is OK”. “There is a general consensus that black people are underrepresented in UK cinema and where they are featured it tends to be in a negative light,” said Evans. “The overwhelming view is that black people are generally portrayed as drug dealers, wearing hoodies, actively involved in gangs and living in sink estates. They rarely have regular, professional jobs.” Heavy criticism is made of TV programmes, including EastEnders, Coronation Street and Shameless. Films including Adulthood and Kidulthood were singled out as painting the most stereotypical pictures of multicultural youth and black people in particular. “There is nothing inspiring about these films and they do nothing to suggest to people that they can get out of the situation they are in,” said Evans. Two in five of respondents agree that characters from ethnic minorities are often cast in films as a token gesture. Half of those aged 16 to 24 agree with this. One in three say roles for minority groups too often have little depth and are poorly written. Just under half believe that Asian characters are too often portrayed as having family conflicts. More than half of the younger age group agree with both these statements. Stories focusing on the working classes were too often depressing, according to over half the general population, with one in three believing the portrayal of the middle class is too “sweet”. Eastern Europeans are shown as being ill-educated and at the bottom of the economic ladder – a new potential stereotype. Two in three of respondents agree that gay characters are too often portrayed with sexual orientation as their main trait. Three in five say they are too often shown as being “camp”. Among the gay, lesbian and bisexual population, those views are held by four out of five people. “Film is often two large strides behind TV in terms of advancing positive depictions of lesbian and gay people,” said Ruth Hunt, Stonewall’s Director of Public Affairs. “Films rarely incorporate positive lesbian and gay characters and storylines.” Evans said the research pointed to “societal disconnect” with the gay audience. “While UK society claims not to be homophobic, in reality gay men feel society is not comfortable with seeing open homosexual relations on screen,” he said. Gender Women Gay rights Race issues Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Lichfield’s photos to go on display

Exhibition at private residence in Staffordshire set to give public a peer’s-eye view of swinging 60s The Earl of Lichfield’s private residence at Shugborough Hall – and the pictures of the glamorous people he photographed there – are going on display to the public for the first time, six years after his death. His rooms at the hall in Staffordshire look ready for the kind of weekend party that will never happen again. The favourite toys of Patrick Lichfield’s dog Drum lie by his chair, his spectacles rest on the catalogue of films in stock on the table by the hearth, the cocktail bar is full, his own-brand colognes and aftershaves are set out in the guest bathrooms and jars of jam from the estate’s gardens line the breakfast-room windowsill. From the swinging 60s on, an H was often mowed into the lawns to indicate where the helicopters should land. Now, instead of Mick Jagger, Princess Anne (holder of the all-time guest record on the miniature motor bike) Joanna Lumley, Ronnie Corbett and Britt Ekland, the public will be invited to wipe its boots and wander around the private life of the Queen’s cousin. His cameras and lighting gear have been set up in a recreation of his studio, and the famous guests appear only in a gallery of his photographs. If he had lived, he would undoubtedly have been preparing to record the latest in a long line of royal weddings. He often shot portraits and commercial commissions at Shugborough, including Lulu doing a twirl in an electric blue gown from the 1976 Freeman’s catalogue, and Little Red Rooster – a distinctly uneasy Mick Jagger clutching an equally nervous-looking hen from the home farm. The naked lovelies in his annual Uniparts calender frequently wandered around in the Shugborough shrubbery. Lichfield’s family, the Ansons, owned the stately home in glorious grounds at Cannock Chase in Staffordshire for centuries. In good times they added classical porticos, diverted main roads or moved a village to improve the front garden. In hard times the rooms were emptied into auctions – Lichfield once recalled turning over a piece of silver on Aristotle Onassis’s yacht and finding his own family crest on the back. In the 1960s house and estate passed to the National Trust, because of enormous death duties after his father and grandfather died within two years. It came into the care of Staffordshire county council which has opened it to the public ever since – except the half which Lichfield leased back as his private apartments, until now. Caddy has worked there for 10 years as a development officer, property manager Liz Carruthers for 14 years, many of the other staff even longer. They all knew Lichfield well. On Friday mornings his elderly butler would climb three flights of ladders to run up the family flag, and some time in the afternoon his chauffeur-driven blue car would arrive at the side door. Ten minutes later the ride-on mower came up from the stables and Lichfield re-emerged in an old jacket and cap, and roared off to do his bit to maintain the immaculate lawns or plant a few dozen more oaks on his private island arboretum which will also open for the first time. He once trundled on the mower past a group of Japanese tourists, who asked if he would mind taking their picture: he did. One November afternoon in 2005, the staff watched the shock on the butler’s face as he took a phone call: Lichfield had just died after a massive stroke, aged 66. When his son ended the lease, Liz Carruthers proposed restoring the rooms as Lichfield redesigned them – his sitting room was once his grandfather’s dressing room, with 365 razors hanging on the wall, one for each shave of the year – and letting the intensly curious public in. The work has been carried out since last July for a total cost of £11,000, which wouldn’t buy a display case for most museum projects. The family took their possessions, including Drum the labrador. When Caddy and Carruthers first walked round rooms emptied of everything except curtains, carpets, one four-poster bed and three pictures, they had a moment of panic. Inspired scavenging has filled the gaps, though Lichfield’s own bedroom and private bathroom with its LL-monogrammed tiles will not be ready till next season. Furniture proved the least of their problems: the National Trust loaned some, more came from Staffordshire museums, and beds from a now-disused circuit court judges’ lodgings. To dress the rooms Caddy opened every cellar, safe, drawer and cupboard in the building, and extraordinary things tumbled out, a cross between a museum store and an upmarket car boot sale: china and silver, a half-full box of Pall Mall cigarettes and coronation invitations; a round box of his grandmother’s ostrich feathers for formal royal occasions; the solid silver cigarette box awarded to his father for winning the three-legged race at Harrow in 1908; a set of cloisonné enamel bowls which came in the 18th century from the Summer Palace in Beijing. Like his grandfather’s stuffed birds, many were things Lichfield would have known as a child but which have been in store since the 1960s. His partner of many years, Lady Annunziata Asquith, loaned personal possessions including his spectacles and a large box of bubble baths. “I think we’ve got it right,” Caddy said. “It’s a slightly eerie feeling, it feels as if he might walk through the door at any minute.” Photography Maev Kennedy guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Moyles marathon raises £2.4m

Radio 1 colleague Fearne Cotton’s promise to broadcast in swimsuit if target was reached saw late surge in donations For 23 years now Britons have been lying in baths of baked beans, shaving their heads and donning amusing outfits, all to raise cash for Comic Relief. But now they know the formula to hoover up £2.4m for the charity in a matter of hours: two dishevelled, baggy-eyed men and a blond woman in a tight swimsuit. The hefty sum was raised in the runup to Friday evening’s annual BBC1 Red Nose Day celeb-athon by the DJ Chris Moyles, with some important last-minute help from his Radio 1 colleague Fearne Cotton. Moyles, along with longstanding sidekick Dave Vitty, more popularly known as “Comedy Dave”, had pledged to collect money by staying on air for a continuous, world record-breaking 50 hours, beginning on Wednesday morning. The steady stream of donations became a flood after Cotton announced that she would broadcast part of her regular mid-morning show – which features a live webcam feed – in a swimming costume if the £2m mark was reached. And reached it was, while the Radio 1 website crashed under the weight of would-be gawpers. Moyles, who lasted 52 hours, later gave special thanks to “that last rush of dirty old men” in helping to beat the target as he was presented with a certificate marking the record. “The end result of this silly, silly show was Fearne Cotton in a swimsuit. Oh and Comic Relief got some money,” Moyles added. The long-established charity event raised more than £82m for charities in the UK and Africa last year. Attempting to beat the 2010 target, Friday’s BBC1 show featured special celebrity-studded editions of Doctor Who, Downton Abbey, Outnumbered and MasterChef. Musical interludes included Take That along with a one-off tribute act, Fake That, comprising James Corden, John Bishop, David Walliams, Catherine Tate and Alan Carr. Chris Moyles Radio Radio 1 BBC Radio industry Television Comic Relief Charities Peter Walker guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …