Vince Cable: government plans to block illegal filesharing sites unworkable
August 2, 2011 No Comment
Business secretary to intervene in Digital Economy Act debate in speech and expected to overhaul restrictive rules on file copying Vince Cable, the business secretary, will say on Wednesday that government plans to block illegal filesharing websites under the controversial Digital Economy Act are in effect unworkable. Outlining the government’s response to the Hargreaves report on the future of UK copyright law, Cable is also expected to announce legislation to sweep away restrictive rules on file copying and parody works. In a speech at the British Library on Wednesday, the Liberal Democrat minister will outline the next steps for the introduction of the delayed Digital Economy Act. Cable will row back on one of the act’s most contentious measures – introducing legislation to block access to copyright-infringing websites – and instead say that the existing Copyrights, Design and Patents Act is powerful enough. That follows last week’s landmark high court ruling, which forced BT to cut off access to Newzbin2, a site found to be infringing copyright “on a grand scale”. Cable’s intervention comes as ministers struggle to implement anti-piracy measures outlined by the Digital Economy Act rushed through by the Labour party at the end of its time in office. The first cease-and-desist warning letters to be sent to Britons accused of illegal filesharing are now not due until the second half of 2012 – more than a year later than originally planned. A series of legal challenges have meant meant that cutting off the internet connections of serial pirates is unlikely to begin until 2013 at the earliest. Cable is also expected to announce a “scoping review” into the viability of a setting up a digital copyright exchange, one of the key proposals of the Hargreaves report published in May – in effect kicking the idea into the long grass. The rights exchange, which would effectively be a one-stop shop to make lawful use of copyrighted material easier, received “serious pushback” from media companies, according to one industry source. Film and music companies and broadcasters are understood to have raised a number of issues about the proposed exchange, including fears that it may contravene various European regulations by forcing all rights holders to participate. One industry source said that if it was a full “stock exchange” trading platform it may not be generate as much revenue as selling rights directly. The government is anticipated to legislate to sweep away many of the UK’s archaic intellectual property restrictions that make it technically illegal to transfer content from CDs or DVDs to other formats, such as iPods. The reforms will also make it legal for Britons to burn copies of music and video files for family members to use, and give legal protection to spoof works. Cable has previously said that private copying is carried out by millions of people who are “astonished” that it is technically illegal. He said: “We need to bring copyright into line with people’s expectations and update it for the modern digital world. This will free up innovative British businesses to develop new consumer technology and help boost economic growth.” The Lib Dem MP is expected to outline further changes to the DEA, including how costs are aportioned between rights holders and ISPs. The judicial review ruled in April that ISPs should not foot the bill of maintaining an appeals body . Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, is understood to have set a date of mid-September to get ISPs and rights holders to another roundtable meeting aimed at curbing infringing sites voluntarily. However, many rights holders are dismayed at the delays in implementing the Digital Economy Act. “What we would very much like is the government to get on drafting and writing the code that goes with the DEA and to fast-track the legal process so it doesn’t take hundreds of thousands of pounds and a long time to sort these things out,” said Lavinia Carey, director general of the British Video Association. Filesharing Internet Vince Cable Computing Digital Economy Act Piracy Digital media Mark Sweney Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Baby P case judicial review application fails leaving sacked children’s services chief in line for £500,000 compensation The supreme court has rejected applications by the Department for Education and Haringey council to challenge a landmark ruling that Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly sacked following the death of Baby P. The appeal court concluded in May that Shoesmith’s dismissal by the former children’s secretary Ed Balls was “intrinsically unfair and unlawful” – a judgment that has now been upheld by the highest court in the land and leaves the former director of children’s services at Haringey council potentially in line for compensation of more than £500,000. The education department and the north London borough had sought permission to attempt to overturn the appeal court ruling, with the government arguing it must uphold the principle that ministers – and not the courts, through judicial review – should be responsible for their decisions. A spokesman for the supreme court said the applications for leave to appeal had been refused. The Department for Education saidit was “very disappointed to hear that permission for leave to appeal to the supreme court has not been granted. The government still believes it was right in principle for Sharon Shoesmith to be removed from her post as director of children’s services. “We believe that the supreme court should have heard this case as we believe there are questions of constitutional importance involved, beyond the specific question about whether Ed Balls should have had a meeting with Shoesmith before she was removed from her post.” Shoesmith, who earned £133,000 a year as an employee of Haringey council, is now liable for pay and pension contributions dating back to her dismissal in December 2008. Some estimates put the compensation and legal costs in the two-year case at more than £1m – a sum that would be paid by the council and the government. Shoesmith was sacked without compensation after Ofsted published a damning report into the death of 17-month-old Baby P – since named as Peter Connelly – exposing failings in her department. Balls moved swiftly to remove Shoesmith but her lawyers argued that she had been the victim of “a flagrant breach of natural justice” and that she was driven from her post by a media witch-hunt and political pressure. The appeal judges found that Balls and Haringey acted too hastily and were “procedurally unfair” because Shoesmith was not given a proper chance to put her case. They said politicians could not ignore elementary fairness when dealing with public servants at the centre of controversy, even when they felt they were acting legitimately in the public interest. Wednesday is the fourth anniversary of Baby Peter’s death. He died in Tottenham, north London, on 3 August 2007 at the hands of his mother, Tracey Connelly, her lover Steven Barker and their lodger, Barker’s brother Jason Owen. He had more than 50 injuries despite being on Haringey’s at-risk register and receiving 60 visits from social workers, police and health professionals over the final eight months of his life. A series of reviews identified missed opportunities when officials could have saved his life if they had acted properly on the warning signs. Shoesmith is believed to be backing a campaign to win back the jobs of four other social workers who were also dismissed. Baby P Child protection Children Randeep Ramesh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Since we’ve already set the precedent of negotiating with hostage-takers, I think we all know how this one will probably end: House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republicans have backed Democrats into a corner: Surrender Tuesday or the FAA stays shut for the rest of the summer. House members left town Monday evening after passing their default-dodging debt limit deal. And they did it with an impasse between the two sides of the Capitol over a temporary Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill unresolved. The Senate is still in town, set to vote on the debt deal Tuesday. That means the only options left on the FAA are either for the standoff to last until Congress returns in September, or for the Senate to cave. And the Senate says it isn’t budging. Earlier Monday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood traveled to New York’s LaGuardia airport to unleash a blistering critique of the congressional stalemate, and to implore Congress not to go on vacation before the funding dispute was resolved. LaHood says 4,000 FAA workers have been furloughed and 70,000 construction workers idled. The FAA also said some airport inspectors are being required to go to work — but can’t be paid until the funding issue is settled. To recap, the GOP-controlled House two weeks ago passed a temporary authorization extension for the FAA. But the bill included a tweak taking a bite out of federal subsidies for just a small handful of regional airports. Senate Democrats refused to swallow the bill, instead insisting on a “clean” extension. The FAA, and nearly 4,000 furloughed workers, have been sitting in the crossfire ever since. In the background of all this is a partisan dispute over federal union rules. A longer-term FAA authorization bill is currently stalled in House-Senate talks because GOP lawmakers want to repeal an Obama Administration rule making it easier for workers at airlines and rail companies to organize. Senate Democrats, led by Rockefeller, have accused Republicans of using the short-term FAA bill as leverage over the union issue. On Monday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-Va.), chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, tried to clear a pair of FAA bills through the Senate. One was the “clean” extension Democrats have been bucking for, the other was a new package of about $71 million dollars in regional airport subsidy cuts, far larger than the cuts Republicans are pushing. A Rockefeller spokesman said Monday that it was unclear whether jammed Senate Democrats would accede to the House FAA bill and reopen the agency .
Continue reading …
Study commissioned by nationalists finds Wales might have prospered through Europe’s ‘small country bonus’ Residents of Wales could be almost 40% richer if their homeland had become an independent nation within the European Union 20 years ago, a report claims. The study , commissioned by the Welsh nationalists Plaid Cymru and carried out by a former Plaid MP, claims Wales could have been more productive than the UK as a whole. Plaid says the report suggests that a key argument against Wales becoming independent – that it would struggle economically – does not stack up. The research was led by the former Plaid MP Adam Price, now a research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Centre for International Development in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Titled the Flotilla Effect, the report looks at what has been achieved by small independent EU nations and what an independent Wales could achieve. The key findings include: • Had Wales become an independent small nation within the EU in 1990, and performed on a par with other small nations, people in Wales could today be an average of 39% richer. • Small is richer: some of Europe’s smallest countries are among its most prosperous. • The “small country bonus”: smaller EU states grow faster and are frequently the fastest to recover from recession. • Four key factors make small nations economically successful: openness to trade, social cohesion, adaptability and “the macro-politics of micro scale” – big government in a small country. The Plaid MEP Jill Evans, who commissioned the report, said: “Plaid has a vision for a wealthier, more prosperous Wales. This exciting report reinforces Plaid’s ongoing work in the field of economic development. “The increasing progress towards independence of many small nations in the European Union, such as Catalonia, Flanders and Scotland, has put this issue firmly on the political agenda. The debate on Scottish independence, in particular, has huge implications for Wales. So it is essential that we have a real debate on how we build a successful and sustainable economy. “The report sets out the potential of an independent Wales. It provides further evidence that we have nothing to fear from independence. Rather than being a hindrance to success, independence can be its catalyst.” Adam Price said: “This report shows quite clearly that size is no barrier to economic success, and in fact, that a small nations like Wales could benefit greatly from independence as many other small nations have done over the past decades.” The report looked at smaller countries including Austria, Denmark, Finland and Luxembourg to try to establish how Wales could have fared had it been independent over the last two decades. “Opponents of independence and further devolution have often misused the current economic problems to suggest that small countries would struggle for survival in tough economic times,” said Price. It took into account the experiences of Ireland and Greece but concluded that on the whole small could be better. The report suggested that when “good times returned” the “flotilla” – Europe’s smaller countries – could change course quicker than larger “super-tanker” nations that can be “too big to sail”. Price said: “Far from hampering a country’s prosperity – being small can actually lead to greater economic success and greater prosperity. When it comes to charting the best economic course, small countries are the most adept and that is reflected in their wealth and wellbeing.” Welsh politics Plaid Cymru Wales Steven Morris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Study commissioned by nationalists finds Wales might have prospered through Europe’s ‘small country bonus’ Residents of Wales could be almost 40% richer if their homeland had become an independent nation within the European Union 20 years ago, a report claims. The study , commissioned by the Welsh nationalists Plaid Cymru and carried out by a former Plaid MP, claims Wales could have been more productive than the UK as a whole. Plaid says the report suggests that a key argument against Wales becoming independent – that it would struggle economically – does not stack up. The research was led by the former Plaid MP Adam Price, now a research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Centre for International Development in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Titled the Flotilla Effect, the report looks at what has been achieved by small independent EU nations and what an independent Wales could achieve. The key findings include: • Had Wales become an independent small nation within the EU in 1990, and performed on a par with other small nations, people in Wales could today be an average of 39% richer. • Small is richer: some of Europe’s smallest countries are among its most prosperous. • The “small country bonus”: smaller EU states grow faster and are frequently the fastest to recover from recession. • Four key factors make small nations economically successful: openness to trade, social cohesion, adaptability and “the macro-politics of micro scale” – big government in a small country. The Plaid MEP Jill Evans, who commissioned the report, said: “Plaid has a vision for a wealthier, more prosperous Wales. This exciting report reinforces Plaid’s ongoing work in the field of economic development. “The increasing progress towards independence of many small nations in the European Union, such as Catalonia, Flanders and Scotland, has put this issue firmly on the political agenda. The debate on Scottish independence, in particular, has huge implications for Wales. So it is essential that we have a real debate on how we build a successful and sustainable economy. “The report sets out the potential of an independent Wales. It provides further evidence that we have nothing to fear from independence. Rather than being a hindrance to success, independence can be its catalyst.” Adam Price said: “This report shows quite clearly that size is no barrier to economic success, and in fact, that a small nations like Wales could benefit greatly from independence as many other small nations have done over the past decades.” The report looked at smaller countries including Austria, Denmark, Finland and Luxembourg to try to establish how Wales could have fared had it been independent over the last two decades. “Opponents of independence and further devolution have often misused the current economic problems to suggest that small countries would struggle for survival in tough economic times,” said Price. It took into account the experiences of Ireland and Greece but concluded that on the whole small could be better. The report suggested that when “good times returned” the “flotilla” – Europe’s smaller countries – could change course quicker than larger “super-tanker” nations that can be “too big to sail”. Price said: “Far from hampering a country’s prosperity – being small can actually lead to greater economic success and greater prosperity. When it comes to charting the best economic course, small countries are the most adept and that is reflected in their wealth and wellbeing.” Welsh politics Plaid Cymru Wales Steven Morris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Bill O’Reilly is trying to play the only adult in Republican politics so his analysis of the new Debt Ceiling bill is to forget eight years of George Bush, who’s policies took a federal surplus into his presidency and turned it into massive debt. He conveniently forgets about the Bush tax cuts, unpaid wars, unfunded Medicare Part D and blames out of control Liberal policies, regulations and government spending for causing all our economic problems. In his Talking Points Memo segment which guides his entire show, he only blames Liberals for our economic problems. No mention of the corruption of Wall Street that led to the TARP bailout born out of the mortgage meltdown crisis, except of course blaming that on Barney Frank. He does have a talent for making right wing propaganda seem almost believable to his flock. (Transcript wasn’t available at the time of the post) BillO does make the case that the government needs to raise revenues which Grover Norquist would disapprove of, but the way he goes about it is to propose the absurd flat tax scheme that shields the rich and calls for a regressive national sales tax that will only hurt 98% of the the American population. See, adding a tax on basic goods is throwing down more taxation on the working class of Americans that can ill afford it. And his defense of it was that since drug dealers weren’t paying any taxes we’d get them there to reduce the deficit . Insanity, I know. On the Flat Tax, which is class warfare that benefits the rich as usual—economist Holley Ulbrich writes: The attraction of simplicity hides a big change in the distribution of tax obligations among the poor, the middle class, and the rich. When think tanks like Cato and Heritage support changes that redistribute the tax burden in that way, they usually warn us of the evils of class warfare. But the proposed flat tax is, in fact, class warfare—yet another attempt to reduce the tax obligations of higher-income households in exchange for the unenforceable hope or promise that they might use the money to invest and create jobs, maybe even jobs in the United States. Two considerations should give us pause before jumping on the flat-tax bandwagon. The first is the disruptive effect of eliminating deductions, credits and exclusions that benefit the middle class as well as the rich and that play important roles in our lives—pension contributions, employer-provided healthcare, and deductions for mortgage interest, property taxes, and charitable contributions that support everything from soup kitchens to education to the arts. Second is the role of our mildly progressive federal income tax in offsetting regressive taxes elsewhere in the system. Second, there’s no concealing that the flat tax would radically redistribute the tax burden. Adam Smith, to whom economists always turn to for economic wisdom, observed, “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” The current U.S. tax system consists mainly of taxes on income (personal and corporate), payroll (Social Security), sales, and property. In 2007, these taxes provided 92 percent of federal income and 51 percent of state and local government income. Sales taxes are regressive—they take a higher share of low incomes than higher incomes. Robert McIntyre wrote about this shame in 1995 and it creepily applies to today. There is little or no disagreement among serious analysts that replacing the current, progressive income tax with a flat-rate tax would dramatically shift the tax burden away from the wealthy–and onto the middle class and the poor. You’ll notice that Bill O’Reilly bashes only Liberals in his screed. What a shock. A national sales tax will never happen, but I believe you’ll hear more talk coming from Republicans on the flat tax as the election nears because it’s an easy phrase to sell.
Continue reading …
Estimated 10m-plus surveillance cameras were installed in China last year, prompting human rights concerns Beijing police have ordered supermarkets and shopping malls to install high-definition security cameras, as China continues its huge expansion in monitoring technology. The country has added millions of surveillance cameras over the last five years, part of a broader increase in domestic security spending. In May, Shanghai announced that a team of 4,000 monitor its surveillance feeds to ensure round-the-clock coverage. The south-western municipality of Chongqing has announced plans to add 200,000 cameras by 2014 because “310,000 digital eyes are not enough”. Urumqi, which saw vicious ethnic violence in 2009, installed 17,000 high-definition, riot-proof cameras last year to ensure “seamless” surveillance. Fast-developing Inner Mongolia plans to have 400,000 units by 2012. In the city of Changsha, the Furong district alone reportedly has 40,000 – one for every 10 inhabitants. There are cameras on streets and in stores, in university classrooms and outside the doors of dissidents. In March, Beijing roused disquiet in the arts world when it mooted plans to spend 5.57m yuan on cameras to monitor performances in venues such as cinemas and theatres . China is hardly unique: Britain has arguably led the world in the use of surveillance cameras. But China has embraced them with particular enthusiasm. IMS Research, an electronics-focused consultancy, has predicted annual growth of more than 20% in China between last year and 2014, and less then 10% elsewhere. Bo Zhang, senior research analyst at IMS, believes that more than 10m cameras were installed in China in 2010. The company estimates that spending reached $680m last year, with the total market – including related systems – hitting a value of $1.7bn. Much of that is in the private sector, but Beijing’s initiative – targeting theft and food poisoning, say police – shows how officials are increasingly mandating companies to install cameras and link up private networks with official ones. Authorities are also investing heavily in new public projects. While some areas have gone much further than others, the national Safe City security plan aims to cover urban China with large networks. Internal security spending has soared to almost 625bn yuan this year, more than the country’s official military budget. Monitoring measures range from reinvigorating the neighbourhood committees that watch the comings and goings of residents to tightening internet controls. China’s domestic security chief has also called for the creation of an advanced database covering every citizen to improve “social management”. Linked to individuals’ identity cards, it would include details such as tax records and educational history. Nicholas Bequelin, Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch, said: “Whereas surveillance cameras are problematic even in democratic societies, there are important counterweights, such as independent courts, privacy statutes, rules about how long the information can be kept and through what legal procedures it can be accessed, as well as independent media and NGO watchdogs. “None of these safeguards exist in China, raising the very real prospect of an Orwellian society – one in which citizens are monitored in permanence, including in their private life.” Although much of the imagery may not be watched in real time, it can be stored for later retrieval. Officials are also seeking ways to automate the analysis of data. Using higher quality cameras paves the way for increasingly sophisticated analysis and linking of the information. Xue Junling, a project manager with Shenzhen Xinghuo Electronic Engineering, says facial recognition was already being used at key points such as big sports stadiums and border checkpoints, although some experts dispute its effectiveness. Many see nothing wrong with the rapid expansion in surveillance cameras, particularly given official claims for their success in cutting crime. Shanghai police said video monitoring helped them to catch 6,000 suspects last year. “If the purpose is for the public security of society, personal rights have to give way to public rights,” said Prof Fu Dingsheng, of the East China University of Political Science and Law, although he added that better safeguards were needed to ensure systems were not abused. Others say the expansion of monitoring is intended not just to cut crime but to systematically reduce the space for dissent. “When dissidents are released from prison or labour camp they often find the surveillance cameras are pointing directing into their homes. That’s something I have heard of a lot in the last couple of years,” said Wang Songlian, of the Chinese Human Rights Defenders Network. The artist Ai Weiwei, who was detained for two months this year, produced a marble sculpture titled Surveillance Camera, mimicking the machines posted outside his studio. The Shanghai rights lawyer Li Tiantian revealed that security officials sought to use footage to increase her isolation during a three-month detention. “They even forced my boyfriend and his brothers and sisters to watch a video that showed me walking into a hotel with other men,” she wrote on Twitter. Wang said state security used cameras to track individuals at sensitive times, but they probably also relied on them for deterrence. “I think the effect is more to intimidate activists – so they feel everything they do is under watch – rather than to gather evidence,” she said. China Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former managing editor and one-time public face of the News of the World taken into custody Stuart Kuttner, the public face of the News of the World and its most vocal public defender for 22 years, has been arrested by police investigating allegations of phone hacking and of bribing police officers to leak sensitive information. As managing editor until his resignation in July 2009, Kuttner was in charge of finances at the now-defunct tabloid. Kuttner, 71, was described at the time of his resignation by the last editor of the newspaper, Colin Myler, as a man whose “DNA is absolutely integrated into the newspaper which he has represented across the media with vigour”. Kuttner reportedly did not know he was going to be taken into custody when he arrived by appointment at a police station in London on Tuesday at 11am for questioning over the phone-hacking scandal. Police from both Operation Weeting (the investigation into phone hacking) and Elveden (the investigation into allegations of inappropriate payments to police), are understood to have arrested Kuttner who is suffering serious health problems and recently returned from the US for treatment. Kuttner is believed to have been arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications, contrary to Section1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977, and on suspicion of corruption allegations contrary to Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. They are the same allegations that Rebekah Brooks, the former News of the World editor and ex-News International chief executive, faces since her arrest last month. When Brooks faced a Commons culture, media and sport select committee hearing last month she told MPs that payments to private investigators were the responsibility of the paper’s managing editor’s office. Brooks admitted using private investigators during her time as editor of the now defunct tabloid between 2000 and 2003 for, she claimed, “purely legitimate” purposes. When asked whether she had ever discussed individual payments to private investigators with Kuttner, she admitted that “payments to private investigators would have gone through the managing editor’s office”. But, she added: “I can’t remember if we ever discussed individual payments.” Kuttner’s role as the public face of the News of the World proved to be key to the tabloid under the editors, Rebekah Brooks – then Rebekah Wade – and her replacement, Andy Coulson, both of whom were reluctant to talk to the media. When Brooks’s “Sarah’s Law” campaign caused public hysteria in some towns and cities across the UK, prompting some Portsmouth residents to burn the homes of suspected paedophiles, it was Kuttner who faced the cameras. He also played a role in the paper’s dealing with Sara Payne in the years after her eight-year-old daughter, Sarah, was abducted and murdered in July 2000. The Guardian revealed last week that Payne’s mobile phone had been targeted by Mulcaire at a time when key members of the newspaper’s executive staff were working hard to forge what Payne believed to be a close and genuine friendship. Kuttner was one of those who attended the funerals of her parents. No reason was given for Kuttner’s departure from the newspaper two years ago, shortly before the Guardian exclusive that blew the phone-hacking story wide open. At the time, News International said he would continue to work on “specialised projects”, including its Sarah’s Law campaign. In February 2008, he appeared on Radio 4′s Today programme and claimed the News of the World was a “watchdog” which guarded against corruption among those in positions of power: “If [the use of private investigators] happens, it shouldn’t happen. It happened once at the News of the World. The reporter was fired; he went to prison. The editor resigned.” He went on to argue that British journalism is “a very honourable profession” and that newspapers such as the News of the World had to act as watchdogs because “we live in an age of corrosion of politics and of public life – degradation”. His role as the public face of the News of the World continued when he visited Soham in 2002, following the disappearance of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, to defend the tabloid’s decision to offer a reward of £150,000 in conjunction with the Sun newspaper for information that could lead to their safe return. He also appeared on the BBC’s Breakfast with Frost, responding to criticism of the reward and saying the man leading the investigation into the girls’ disappearance, Detective Superintendent David Hankins, had welcomed it. The managing editor was also an influential presence behind the scenes. When Gordon Brown and Tony Blair gave their first joint newspaper interview for more than 10 years to the tabloid in April 2005, Kuttner’s byline was on the story, along with that of Ian Kirby, the paper’s long-serving political editor. The arrest of Kuttner, who was news editor at the London Evening Standard before moving to the NoW in 1987, is the 11th by Operation Weeting police, who are conducting the current investigation into phone hacking. After being questioned by police – a process that lasted 12 hours in the case of Brooks – he is expected to be released on bail until October. Others arrested and bailed have included Brooks, ex-NoW editor Andy Coulson, ex-NoW assistant editor Ian Edmondson, ex-NoW chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck, senior ex-NoW journalist James Weatherup, freelance journalist Terenia Taras, an unnamed 63-year-old man, and ex-NoW royal editor Clive Goodman. Operation Elveden was also involved in Kuttner’s arrest. Officers from Elveden are being supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Phone hacking News International News of the World Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers News Corporation Media business Rebekah Brooks Glenn Mulcaire Andy Coulson Police Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Sawyer and Williams Cue Up Pelosi to Expound on Her ‘Fear’ Debt Deal Will ‘Hurt Real People’
August 2, 2011 No Comment
Two network anchors, 24 hours apart, cued up House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to despair from the left how the debt ceiling deal, presumably because of some future potential slight reductions in the projected rate of spending increases, will “hurt real people” as NBC’s Brian Williams asked her to confirm her “fear” that “the poor are gonna get hurt and the rich are gonna get by without harm.” On Monday’s World News , ABC’s Diane Sawyer inquired: “You think this is really going to hurt real people?” During Sunday’s Dateline , “Taking the Hill: Inside Congress,” viewers heard NBC’s Brian Williams, in an exchange which occurred last Wednesday, tell the former House Speaker: “A liberal member said to me his fear is the poor are gonna get hurt and the rich are gonna get by without harm in this. Is that your fear?” Neither cued up any Republican leader with a similar leading question from the right. Sawyer also talked to John Boehner and Williams interviewed several for his Sunday night special. In fact, NBC earlier highlighted Williams hitting a GOP leader from the left: Running a brief excerpt from his Sunday night Dateline special, “Taking the Hill: Inside Congress,” Brian Williams on Thursday evening showcased one and only one question he posed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. He demanded: “Why shouldn't rich folks pay more?” Though the debt deal doesn’t actually “cut” any spending as it doesn’t touch entitlement programs and allows discretionary spending to grow by tens of billions each year, Sawyer ominously warned the deal will “reduce government spending by more than $2 trillion over ten years and ultimately it’s expected to take a machete to programs ranging from student loans to the defense budget.” From the Monday, August 1 World News: DIANE SAWYER, IN PELOSI’S OFFICE: So you are voting for it? NANCY PELOSI, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: Absolutely. We have to get this over with. We have to get to work putting people back to work and every day that we were stuck in this negotiation was a day that we weren't doing everything we — in our power to create jobs. SAWYER: Bitter pill? PELOSI: Well, it's more than a bitter pill. What would be the next stage up from a bitter pill? SAWYER: So if it takes the Democratic votes to do this, to avoid default, you're going to deliver them? PELOSI: The Democrats are not going to have the country default. I'm not saying they're happy about it. At the end of the day, we're voting for a bill that has severe cuts in our domestic agenda. That impedes our economic growth. SAWYER: You think this is really going to hurt real people? PELOSI: Well, I hope not. How could we have severe cuts to our domestic agenda, the education of our children, for example, and not one red cent coming from those who can afford to share the sacrifice that is necessary to reduce the deficit. From the Sunday, July 31 Dateline , “Taking the Hill: Inside Congress”: BRIAN WILLIAMS: Back in Pelosi's office she's already talking about what the impact of the ultimate deal will be. WILLIAMS TO REP. NANCY PELOSI: A liberal member said to me his fear is the poor are gonna get hurt and the rich are gonna get by without harm in this. Is that your fear? REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well my concern is for the great middle-class and we want to have a resolution of this that is for a hundred percent of the American people. Republicans want to have a resolution that is for the two percent.
Continue reading …
Five-time test failure’s friend agreed to step in – and ended up making 16 mistakes, court told Two bungling drivers have been jailed for hatching a “ridiculously unsophisticated” plot to get one of them a licence. Hadi Mohammed, 28, a former Iraqi police officer, had failed his test five times and his friend, Derbas Hamed, a qualified driver, agreed to step in and take the examination for him. Eyebrows were raised when Hamed, 25, was spotted driving up to the test centre in Gloucester alone. Hamed pretended to be Mohammed and took the test but failed in “spectacular fashion”, making 16 mistakes, Gloucester crown court heard. Staff were suspicious and called the police. Rosie Walsh, for the prosecution, said: “Mr Mohammed had booked to take his driving test in Gloucester. He had failed the test five times beforehand.” She said Hamed showed staff his friend’s provisional licence and because they looked similar he was allowed to take the test. Walsh added: “When the police interviewed Mr Hamed at first he gave his name as Mr Mohammed but when he was arrested he confessed. When Mr Mohammed was also arrested he said he had been too tired to take the test.” Giles Nelson, in mitigation for Mohammed, said: “My client did not actively commit the deception and played a secondary part. “It was an extremely unsophisticated fraud, ridiculously unsophisticated and amateurish. He got nowhere near succeeding and is thoroughly ashamed. “Since coming to this country from Iraq he is desperate to find work and needs a driving licence.” Lloyd Jenkins, for father-of-two Hamed, said: “My client was candid in interview and has apologised. He drove his friend to Gloucester as a favour and on the way the plan was hatched. There was no money involved. “My client says that he realised what he was doing was wrong so he deliberately failed the test in a spectacular fashion. He had 16 driving faults.” The men, who are from Bristol, admitted fraud by false representation. Mohammed was jailed for two months and Hamed, who has a previous conviction for fraud after he impersonated someone else for a driving theory test, was sent to prison for three months. Recorder Michael De Navarro QC told the men: “This is a very serious offence and had you both been successful a completely unqualified driver and not a very good one at that would have been let loose on the roads. “This would have meant a danger to other road-users and only a custodial sentence is justified. I do not accept Mr Hamed’s contention that he failed the test deliberately.” Crime Steven Morris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …