Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 648)
Phone-hacking: Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks face MPs – live

Rolling coverage of all the day’s developments as Rupert Murdoch, his son James and Rebekah Brooks face MPs’ questions over phone hacking 12.03pm: I’m watching on BBC News. Jon Sopel is playing to time at the moment. There’s an atmosphere of “subdued fevered excitement” at Wesminster, he said. Not sure what that means, but we get the point. With luck, Keith Vaz will put him out of his misery by starting the hearing soon. 11.55am: It’s all about to start. Sir Paul Stephenson , the outgoing commissioner of the Metropolitan police, is giving evidence to the home affairs committee first. They are due to start at 12pm. Here’s the resignation statement he made on Sunday. 11.48am: The Tories have put out a statement attacking Lord Kinnock for suggesting that impartiality rules should apply to the press. (See 10.31am.) This is from Michael Fallon , the deputy chairman of the Conservative party. For a politician to call for political control of the press is pretty sinister. Having spent the last decade and a half cosying up to the Murdoch press, Labour are now trying to turn this into a political vendetta which threatens to damage our democracy. Ed Miliband needs to distance himself from his mentor immediately. 11.45am: My colleague Paul Owen has been looking at today’s coverage of the hacking scandal in the British press. All the Guardian’s stories can be found here , including this piece by John Harris looking at the extent and reach of senior figures in News Corporation and News International and their influence on British politics and politicians. Also in today’s Guardian is this profile of Dick Fedorcio , the Metropolitan police’s director of public affairs and perhaps the most unfamiliar name giving evidence to MPs today ( see 8.12am for full running order ). It’s also worth revisiting Nick Davies’s list of questions the members of the culture committee should ask Murdoch, his son James, and Rebekah Brooks this afternoon. The Daily Mirror’s leader column suggests that David Cameron will be feeling “sick to the put of his stomach” when Rupert Murdoch gives evidence this afternoon. Murdoch Senior is most dangerous when he’s cornered and, among those he feels betrayed by, is a Prime Minister on the run. The Daily Mail reports on a BBC Radio 5 Live phone-in in which Ed Miliband was criticised for using the family of Milly Dowler as “a political football”. The Labour leader has won widespread praise elsewhere for his handling of the scandal. The Mail also repeats its call for “a sense of proportion” in covering the phone-hacking cases – particularly when the economies of Britain and the world are in such trouble. The Independent has an informative piece comparing the relationship between Sir Paul Stephenson and Neil Wallis with that between David Cameron and Andy Coulson. It concludes: Sir Paul is right to point out that he has taken responsibility for his force’s close relationship with News International in way political leaders have not. But it is difficult to equate the employment by police of a man who held a senior role at a newspaper they were being asked to investigate with No 10′s decision to employ an adept tabloid attack dog. The Times, a News International paper, says in a leader column that today is an “opportunity for sober clarity”, and lists a number of questions MPs should ask Brooks and the Murdochs. A Times/Populus poll echoes today’s Guardian/ICM survey in showing little benefit accruing to Labour in the scandal. 11.44am: My colleague Jane Martinson has sent me this from the queue for the culture committee hearing. A former employee of the now closed News of the World is waiting in the public queue. “I want to see the hairs on the back of Rupert Murdoch’s neck and I want to see Rebekah put on the spot.” Odd atmosphere here with public queue full of people reading books and sitting down and hacks chatting to each other. 11.38am: Is there any similarity between the phone hacking affair and the death of Diana? In a provocative article for Spiked Online, Brendan O’Neill says: “This is now something akin to a ‘Diana moment’, except we are implored to shelve our critical faculties in the name of collectively hating a mogul rather than collectively loving a princess.” O’Neill argues the commentators who are celebrating the phone hacking affair because it will weaken the power of the Murdoch empire are missing the point. Which brings us to the present day and the harebrained idea that loosening Murdoch’s alleged grip will liberate and re-populate with principle the British political sphere. Whatever you think of Murdoch – I am not a fan, and I believe that the phone-hacking antics at the News of the World were deplorable and indefensible – this is clearly nonsense. Because it was the already existing disarray of the British political sphere that empowered Murdoch in the first place. The respectable commentariat has effectively declared war on a man who was merely the beneficiary of historic political fallout, not the orchestrator of it. Remove him from the picture and those various profound problems – the emptying out of both left and right ideologies, the aloofness of the political class, the transformation of politics into a purely elite pastime – will still exist. Our politicians will still have nothing of substance to say, just fewer tabloids in which not to say it. 11.29am: The phone hacking affair is a “three-headed monster”, according to the Labour MP Chris Bryant. According to PoliticsHome, this is what he told BBC News. There was the original criminality at the News of the World – the phone hacking. There was the attempt to hush it up by News International and there was the failure of the Metropolitan police to investigate, probably because the Murdoch empire had all its tentacles creeping into every nook and cranny of the Metropolitan police … I think it is that combination that makes it into one of the biggest scandals that we’ve known in British political history for the last 75 years. 11.21am: Westminster feels as if it is in general election-mode because there’s so much interest in the select committee hearings. The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg says on Twitter she has seen 16 camera crews on College Green. And Paul Waugh, who is standing in the queue for the culture committee hearing, says on Twitter he’s seen the great Harry Evans, the former Sunday Times editor, try to barge his way to the front. 11.12am: Which papers benefited from the closure of the News of the World? My colleague Josh Halliday has been looking at the figures, and he says the Sunday Mirror did best, gaining almost 730,000 in sales. 11.02am: Dick Fedorcio, the Metropolitan police’s director of public affairs, is being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over his relationship with the former News of the World executive Neil Wallis, the Press Association is reporting. 10.52am: Today’s culture select committee hearing raises tricky legal problems because the committee won’t want anything to be said that could prejudice any court proceedings in the future. Joshua Rozenberg has written a guide to this problem for Guardian Law. 10.39am: A Labour MP has written to Sir Gus O’Donnell asking for an investigation into the allegation that David Cameron broke the ministerial code, the Daily Telegraph reports. John Mann has suggested that, in having dinner with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks on 23 December last year (when the government was still considering News Corporation’s bid for BSkyB), Cameron broke the section of the code saying that “ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests”. Number 10 has an independent adviser on ministerial interests who can investigate complaints of this kind. But, as the Telegraph points it, it is the prime minister himself who decides if a complaint merits investigation. Cameron will have to rule on himself. I think we can predict what he will say. 10.31am: As promised, but a bit late, here is what Neil Kinnock said about changing the law to ensure that the press is politically balanced. (See 8.26am.) I’ve taken the quote from PoliticsHome. We have had, since the 1950s, independent television, commercially independent and commercially run subject to a charter which it has honoured with great fidelity, and I see no reason at all why those general rules, which have certainly not impeded freedom of expression or activity in any way at all, shouldn’t have wider applications. When he was asked if he meant that the impartiality rules that apply to broadcasters should apply to the press, Kinnock replied: “What they require is balance, and I think that [that is] all that anyone would possibly ask for in terms of freedom of expression.” 10.20am: Mark Ferguson at LabourList has more on the way Labour’s Cathy Jamieson was excluded from the culture committee last night. (See 9.43am.) He names the Tory MP responsible. Last night Labour MP Cathy Jamieson should have been elected unopposed to the DCMS Select Committee, replacing the recently deceased David Cairns ahead of today’s showdown with Rebekah Brooks and the Murdochs. And yet Tory MP Nick De Bois decided to shout “object”, which meant that Jamieson has yet to be elected to the committee, and won’t be able to question the News International trio today. On his own blog, Paul Waugh suggests this might have been retaliation for a Labour attempt to keep David Laws off a committee dealing with the draft finance bill. I called De Bois to find out for myself why he blocked Jamieson. He was not available, but they took a message in his office. I’ll let you know if he rings back. 10.04am: According to the Press Association, a post-mortem examination is taking place this morning as police continued to investigate the death of Sean Hoare, the News of the World whistleblower. A Hertfordshire Police spokeswoman said: “The man’s next of kin have been informed and the family are being supported by police at this sad time.” Officers have yet to confirm arrangements for an inquest. 9.55am: Ed Miliband , the Labour leader, has said that he does not want today’s hearing with Rupert Murdoch to be a witch-hunt. According to PoliticsHome, this is what he told BBC News. I think this has to be done in a calm and level-headed way and I’m sure it will be on all sides of the house, from MPs from all parties, because the key thing here is to get to the truth. It is not about a witch-hunt. It’s about getting at the truth. “Not a witch-hunt” must be the line to take because Jim Sheridan , a Labour MP who sits on the culture committee, used exactly the same phrase when he was interviewed on Irish radio earlier. My colleague Lisa O’Carroll was listening. This is what Sheridan said about what he would be asking. I like to know what kind of relationship [Murdoch has] had with senior politicians, what influence does he think he has had … What it won’t be today, as some of the leading commentators were suggesting that it will be, [is] some sort of witch-hunt of the MPs against the press. That is certainly not what it’s about, we will be asking in a polite way, robust questions. 9.43am: John Prescott has just been on BBC News. He has revealed that the Labour MP Cathy Jamieson was lined up to be made a member of the culture committee but, when the motion to include her went before the Commons last night, it was blocked by Tories. Jamieson is a former justice minister in the Scottish executive and Prescott suggested that the move to exclude her was somehow connected with Tommy Sheridan’s libel case against the News of the World in Scotland, which ultimately led to Sheridan being convicted for perjury. 9.34am: Bob Crow, the RMT general secretary, has been told that it will take three months before the police can tell him whether he was a victim of phone hacking. “We have been informed by officers from Operation Weeting that it will be up to three months before we get answers from the investigations into the suspicion that Bob Crow, and possibly other officials of the RMT, were targeted by the news international hacking conspiracy,” an RMT spokesman said. 9.25am: It’s not true to say that Rupert Murdoch has never given evidence to a parliamentary committee before. Lord Fowler, the chairman of the Lords communications committee, has just told BBC News that Murdoch gave evidence to his committee four years ago. It was not in a public hearing. The committee flew to the US and spoke to Murdoch, and other media figures, in private. But they did publish minutes of their meeting. They are in appendix 4 of the committee’s report, The Ownership of the News. 9.18am: Chris Bryant , the Labour MP who has been campaigning on phone hacking for ages, has just dropped an intriguing hint about “more to come” in an interview on BBC News. The theatre of [today's appearance] is irrelevant. In the end we’ve got to get to the bottom of what is a very murky pool. And I tell you Rebekah Brooks was right. We’re only half way into that pool at the moment. There’s stuff about Surrey police as well and other things that are still to come out. When pressed, Bryant refused to say any more. Bryant was referring to reports saying that Brooks said that there were worse revelations to come when she told staff at the News of the World that the paper was closing. 9.14am: In the comments some readers have been asking who sits on the culture committee and on the home affairs committee. Here are the official lists. • Members of the culture committee • Members of the home affairs committee The BBC has also got a good list with mini profiles of all the members of the culture committee. 9.02am: Here’s a short reading list of hacking-related articles on the web this morning. • Bloomberg says News Corporation is thinking of replacing Rupert Murdoch as the company’s chief executive officer with Chase Carey. News Corp. is considering elevating Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey to chief executive officer to succeed Rupert Murdoch, people with knowledge of the situation said. A decision hasn’t been made and a move depends in part on Murdoch’s performance before the U.K. Parliament today, said the people, who weren’t authorized to speak publicly. Murdoch would remain chairman, the people said. News Corp. executives who watched Murdoch, 80, rehearse for his appearance had concerns about how he handled questions, according to three people, who weren’t authorized to speak publicly. Murdoch and his son James are scheduled to discuss the company’s role in the alleged phone hacking of murder victims, members of the royal family and others by the News of the World, which was closed on July 10. • Paul Goodman at ConservativeHome wants to know why Downing Street is not fighting to protect David Cameron’s reputation. Where is the publicised push to haul Piers Morgan before a Select Committee? (The running on the story has been made by Guido Fawkes.) Why is there no campaign to ram home the message that the Daily Mirror carried out three times as many illegal transactions as the News of the World (according to the Information Commissioner)? Who advised the Prime Minister to fly off abroad rather than go on TV here – telling viewers that his priorities are theirs: curbing the deficit, controlling immigration, improving schools, tackling the Euro-zone crisis? How come published details of meetings with Rebekah Wade were wrong? The buck for all this stops not with CCHQ but with Number 10, where there are three main problems, which Downing Street sources themselves concede. First, that while Cameron’s relationship with Downing Street’s main players is strong, their relationship with each other is less so: Llewellyn, Oliver, Hilton and Cooper, for all their individual talents, haven’t bonded into a coherent, collective unit. Second, as Tim and I have repeatedly said (try here and here), there is no single, strong Lynton Crosby-type figure in command of the Downing Street operation: its flaws derive from there being no clear structure at the centre. Third, there is a shortage of grey hair. The appointment of Fallon to some degree made up for this. But no-one plays for Cameron the role that Stephen Sherbourne played for Michael Howard – the old hand who can draw on memories of past crises to deal with present ones. • Robert Pollock in the Wall Street Journal says that Rupert Murdoch has not tried to influence the editorial direction of the WSJ. Most people go about their business in semi-autonomous units, perhaps with a vague notion of pleasing someone distant up the chain of command, but most often with a simple desire to do their best job as they and their immediate colleagues see it. If you want an example of editorial independence at News Corp., look at how often “The Simpsons” mock their broadcasters at Fox. So what about the phone-hacking issue that now has politicians on both sides of the pond demanding investigations of the Murdoch “empire”? It’s not part of a corporate culture that I have been exposed to. Do I believe some editors and reporters could have skirted ethical norms without direction or knowledge at the top? Yes, such things happen in large organizations. 8.48am: Alastair Campbell has been doing the rounds this morning. He has made a few high-profile committee or inquiry appearances in his time and, according to PoliticsHome , he had this advice for Rupert Murdoch. The most important thing is to be right on top of [it], you’ve got to think through every question you’re going to be asked and you’ve got to think through what it is you’re likely to say and, I think, even more important than that, is having an overall strategy for it because it’s several hours. You need to think through what you want to come out of it at the end, what it is that you want to get over and the weak points in your argument that you know they’re going to come at. I didn’t rehearse but I certainly spent any spare time I had preparing for it and understanding it’s a really important moment. Sadly, he didn’t advise Murdoch to stick a drawing pin in his hand. This – supposedly – is the technique Campbell used to stop him losing his temper when he was giving evidence to a Commons committee in 2003 about his war with the BBC about its Iraq coverage. 8.43am: MPs who sit on select committees often get criticised (particularly by journalists) for not asking particularly good questions. On BBC Breakfast this morning Geoffrey Robertson QC made this point rather grandly. “None of the committee members are good examiners”, he said, in a discussion about the culture committee hearing. 8.40am: Just in case you missed it, here are some details about the story that broke last night about Scotland Yard employing a senior News of the World executive as an interpreter. This is from the story filed by the Press Association. Alex Marunchak had been employed by the Metropolitan Police as a Ukrainian language interpreter with access to highly sensitive police information. In a statement, Scotland Yard confirmed he had been on the Met’s list of interpreters – providing interpretation and translation services for victims, witnesses and suspects who do not speak English – between 1980 and 2000. It acknowledged that his employment “may cause concern”, adding that some professions may be “incompatible” with such a sensitive job. It said the Met’s language services were now looking into the matter. “Since the records system became electronic in 1996, we know that he undertook work as a Ukrainian language interpreter on one occasion in 1997 and six in 1999, as well as two translation assignments, totalling around 27 hours of work. It is likely he undertook work prior to 1996 as well,” the statement said. “Interpreters are vetted by the MPS and all sign the Official Secrets Act. They are employed on a freelance, self-employed basis. “We recognise that this may cause concern and that some professions may be incompatible with the role of an interpreter.” 8.32am: Earlier Sir Hugh Orde, (left) the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, was on the Today programme. He praised Sir Paul Stephenson and Paul Yates for the “honourable” way they both resigned, but the most newsworthy moment in the interview came when he dropped a clear hint that he would like to succeed Stephenson as commissioner of the Metropolitan police. Asked if he wanted the job, Orde replied: I think the dust needs to settle before anyone makes a decision on the way forward. Asked whether that meant he was waiting to decide whether to put his name forward, Orde said: “Exactly.” 8.26am: Neil Kinnock , the former Labour leader, has just given an interview to the Today programme. He resisted the temptation to say: “Will the last person to leave News International please turn out the lights?” But he did suggest that the press should be regulated in such a way as to enforce political balance. John Humphrys was so horrified that he almost fell of his chair (because he seemed to think the idea unworkable.) I’ll post the full quotes shortly. 8.12am: BSkyB haven’t yet launched Sky Select Committees as a premium pay channel, but there would be a lot of us who would willing to pay good money to watch Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks go through the wringer this afternoon. In one paper at the weekend this was described as the most important select committee hearing in parliament’s history and – although claims of this kind are generally, by their nature, implausible – it’s hard, off-hand, to think of any single hearing that beats it. But what are we going to actually find out? Two quotes in today’s Guardian are worth considering. In her article on the hearing, Jane Martinson points out that the Murdochs and Brooks will have two conflicting priorities. This will be the conundrum for the Murdoch team: how to present their man as an honest, open and humble executive who is sorry about past failings while at the same time shielding him from further inquiries. One senior media lawyer said: “The PR advice will be to look them in the eyes, tell the truth and look upfront for the global TV audience. The legal advice will be to say nothing.” And, in his article, Patrick Wintour quotes Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has been campaigning tirelessly on phone hacking and who sits on the culture committee. “There is not going to be a killer blow on Tuesday. Expectations are way too high,” [Watson] told the Guardian. “We will get the symbolism of parliament holding these people to account for the first time. We will look for facts, and not just offer rhetoric. This story has been like slicing a cucumber, you just get a little bit closer to the truth each time.” I”ve never heard the “cucumber theory” of select committee procedure before, but Watson is almost certainly on to something. The culture committee hearing is getting all the attention but, like a rival impresario, the home affairs committee’s Keith Vaz is also putting on his own show and he has got three of the most important figures from Scotland Yard giving evidence, as well as three other key witnesses coming on later. If anyone ever makes Hackgate: the movie , the story will involve a handful of key figures. Many of them are appearing in parliament today. Here’s the full running order. 12pm: Sir Paul Stephenson , the outgoing commissioner of the Metropolitan police, gives evidence to the home affairs committee. 12.45pm: Dick Fedorcio , director of public affairs at the Met, gives evidence to the home affairs committee. 1.15pm: John Yates , who resigned yesterday as assistant commissioner at the Met, gives evidence to the home affairs committee. 2.30pm: Rupert Murdoch and his son James give evidence to the culture committee. 3.30pm: Rebekah Brooks gives evidence to the culture committee. 5.30pm: Lord Macdonald , the former director of public prosecutions, gives evidence to the home affairs committee. 6pm: Keir Starmer , the current director of public prosecutions, gives evidence to the home affairs committee. 6.20pm: Mark Lewis, the solicitor representing the Dowler family , gives evidence to the home affairs committee. We’ll be blogging all the evidence in full, as well as bringing you all the other developments in the phone hacking story and rounding up the best reaction from the web. Phone hacking Newspapers Newspapers & magazines House of Commons Metropolitan police Rebekah Brooks Rupert Murdoch News International Andy Coulson Ed Miliband David Cameron News of the World Sir Paul Stephenson Police Keith Vaz Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Atlantis shuttle leaves International Space Station

US space shuttle pulls away from orbital outpost after delivering enough food and equipment to bridge potential year-long gap The last US space shuttle has left the International Space Station, ending a 12-year programme to build and service the orbital outpost, the primary legacy of Nasa’s shuttle fleet. Atlantis commander Chris Ferguson and pilot Doug Hurley gently pulsed their shuttle’s steering jets early on Tuesday to pull away from the station as they sailed about 250 miles (400km) over the Pacific Ocean. “Thanks so much for hosting us,” Ferguson radioed to the station crew. “It’s been an absolute pleasure.” “We’ll miss you guys,” replied station flight engineer Ron Garan. “See you back on Earth.” Flight controllers at Nasa’s Mission Control Centre sat in silence as they watched the last shuttle pulling away from the station, a $100bn (£60bn) project of 16 countries that has been assembled and serviced during 37 of Nasa’s 135 shuttle missions. During their nine-day visit to the station, Ferguson and his crew delivered more than five tons of food, clothing, equipment and science experiments, a stockpile intended to bridge a potential year-long gap in US cargo runs to the station. Atlantis’s return to Earth, scheduled for Thursday, will conclude the 30-year-old US space shuttle programme, with no replacement US spacecrafts ready to fly. Nasa has hired two private firms, Space Exploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences Corp, to resupply the station beginning next year. Russia, Europe and Japan also fly freighters to the station. Astronauts will fly aboard Russian Soyuz capsules at a cost of more than $50m per person, until and unless US companies are able to offer similar transportation services. Several firms, including Boeing, Space Exploration Technologies and Sierra Nevada Corp are developing passenger spaceships, but none are expected to be ready until 2015. The first US space taxi to reach the station will return home with a prize. In an emotional farewell ceremony on Monday, Ferguson presented the station crew with a small American flag that flew during the April 1981 debut flight of sister ship Columbia. The flag was mounted on the vestibule wall of the compartment that leads to the shuttle’s now-obsolete docking port. It is promised to the first US company that flies astronauts to the station. Nasa wants to refly the flag aboard the first of its planned spaceships that are designed to carry astronauts to asteroids, the moon and other destinations beyond the station, where the shuttles cannot go. Atlantis is due back at the Kennedy Space Centre on Thursday. Final space shuttle mission Nasa Space The space shuttle International Space Station United States guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

Police say Tyler Hadley, 17, killed his parents with a hammer, hid their bodies in a bedroom and then invited friends over for party A 17-year-old boy in Florida has been accused of bludgeoning his parents with a hammer, then holding a party with dozens of friends while their bodies lay in the bedroom, according to police. Tyler Hadley of Port St Lucie is charged with two counts of first-degree murder, which authorities say took place on Saturday. He is being held without bond at a juvenile detention centre. Blake and Mary-Jo Hadley were believed to have been struck in the head and torso with a hammer sometime after Tyler had posted on Facebook, around 1.15pm on Saturday, inviting friends to an evening party at his house, about 50 miles (80km) north of West Palm Beach. Investigators believe the parents were attacked outside their master bedroom, and that their bodies were then moved into the bedroom and the door locked. As many as 60 people attended the party that night, according to Port St Lucie police spokesman Tom Nichols. They were loud enough to prompt a noise complaint and a visit by police officers. When police arrived at 1.30am on Sunday to warn about the noise, the party was already breaking up, Nichols said. The police then received a tip that murder may have taken place and returned to the home at 4.20am, where they found the bodies covered with towels, files, books and other household items, and the hammer between them. Mary-Jo Hadley, 47, was an elementary school teacher. Blake Hadley, 54, worked for Florida Power and Light. Autopsies were under way, but police believe they died of blunt-force trauma. They said the motive behind the killings was unknown. Florida United States guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
BAA ordered to sell Stansted and one Scottish airport

• Competition Commission orders sell-off • Either Glasgow or Edinburgh must go • BAA says it may seek judicial review • Falling passenger numbers could weigh on price BAA must sell Stansted airport and either Glasgow or Edinburgh airport, the Competition Commission has ruled, in a move that has brought threats of a judicial review from the Heathrow owner. The commission brushed aside arguments from BAA that the original order for a break-up in 2009 has been rendered irrelevant by a shift in the political landscape. Under this earlier ruling BAA had been told to sell off some of its largest airports because, in the commission’s view, it was holding back the development of new runways in south-east England. However, the coalition government’s embargo on airport expansion has annulled the commission’s position, the airport group claimed. The commission gave that stance short shrift on Tuesday morning as it demanded that BAA sell Stansted first, followed by either Glasgow or Edinburgh. Noting improvements at Gatwick, which BAA sold for £1.5bn to a US investment fund two years ago , one of the commission’s senior officials said passengers and airlines would benefit from further competition in the south-east. “The introduction of new ownership at Gatwick, whilst too recent for us to draw any firm conclusions, has given a foretaste of the benefits competition can bring,” said Peter Freeman. “We think that these benefits will be all the greater once Stansted, Gatwick and Heathrow are all in competition with each other.” BAA accused the commission of ignoring political developments and said it is considering a judicial review, despite having won an earlier appeal at a tribunal only to have the decision overturned in the supreme court. Colin Matthews, BAA chief executive, said: “We are dismayed that the Competition Commission’s final decision still requires BAA to sell Stansted and either Glasgow or Edinburgh airport. The Competition Commission has not recognised that the world and BAA have changed. This decision would damage our company which is investing strongly in UK jobs and growth. We have a responsibility to protect our shareholders’ investment and we will now consider a judicial review of the Competition Commission’s decision.” Spanish conglomerate Ferrovial is the majority shareholder in BAA, having led a consortium that paid more than £10bn for the business, loading the company with a multi-billion pound debt burden that was partly alleviated by the sale of Gatwick. BAA also faces the prospect of putting Stansted and possibly Glasgow on the block at a time when both assets are in a state of decline. Stansted saw passenger numbers fall 7% to 18.6 million last year as Ryanair and easyJet, its biggest customers, grounded planes in the winter or took them elsewhere, while Glasgow suffered the biggest dip of any BAA asset as traffic declined by 9.6% to 6.5 million people. It is understood that BAA’s board has yet to formally consider which Scottish airport to sell, although Glasgow is thought to be the more likely candidate because Edinburgh has the stronger growth prospects and more profitable passengers. Price will also be an issue for BAA, which was at least able to avoid a firesale of Gatwick because it sold the airport voluntarily ahead of a final commission ruling. Even then, BAA took a £277m hit on the sale after admitting that 2009 was “not a good year” in which to be selling Britain’s second largest airport. Stansted and Glasgow’s passenger statistics are expected to weigh on BAA’s attempts to secure a premium for those assets, analysts warned. “Surely they need a judicial review, just to buy time,” said one analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It is a dreadful time to sell those airports, worse than 2009. You keep thinking that the downward momentum in traffic numbers will slow down, but it doesn’t.” BAA Travel & leisure Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Badger cull decision due

Environment secretary expected to green light killing of creatures within strict limits in bid to protect cattle from bovine TB The fate of England’s badgers will be decided at lunchtime on Tuesday in parliament, when the environment secretary will tell MPs whether a proposed cull of the creatures – blamed for helping to spread tuberculosis in cattle – will take place. The decision, to be announced by environment secretary Caroline Spelman, is likely to be in favour of a cull, albeit one that is geographically restricted and that includes strict limits. But a green light for a cull – which farmers have demanded for more than a decade – would be highly controversial. Badgers, though not endangered, are a protected species, and the efficacy of a cull in protecting cattle from TB is widely contested . Lord Krebs, who as a government adviser in 1997 was the architect of a 10-year experimental cull, recently rejected culling as “ineffective” and said other measures would be more productive, such as improved security for cattle to prevent them coming into contact with badgers, and the use of a vaccine when one becomes readily available. Culling badgers, according to the trials, resulted in a 16% reduction in “confirmed new incidence” of TB in cattle herds – an outcome that farming leaders have hailed as a useful strategy, but that Krebs said was not enough to justify a widespread cull. He said: “You cull intensively for at least four years, you will have a net benefit of reducing TB in cattle of 12% to 16%. So you leave 85% of the problem still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of badgers. It doesn’t seem to me an effective way of controlling the disease.” However, the National Farmers’ Union favours a cull, citing evidence from Ireland, where experimental culls have been allowed, and from Australia and New Zealand, where culls of other wild animals have been credited with reducing disease rates. Bovine TB causes tens of millions of pounds of damage annually, with affected farmers forced to discard milk, meat and other products from infected beasts, and sometimes to abandon livestock farming altogether. The worst affected areas are in the south-west of England and Wales, but “hotspots” for the disease occur around the country. Under the proposals before the government, farmers would be allowed to kill badgers using “free shooting”. This would mean trained marksmen targeting badgers, a method that would be paid for by farmers and is likely to be cheaper than the alternative of trapping and killing badgers. Farming leaders said free shooting would enable groups of farmers and landowners to club together to target areas of at least 150 sq km, the minimum likely to be allowed under any new culling rules, and they would only be granted a licence if it can be proven the area is a TB “hotspot”. However, the farming experts acknowledged that, based on experiences in other countries, the cull would have to take place over as long as 20 years in order to have the effect needed. Badgers Bovine tuberculosis Rural affairs Animals Caroline Spelman Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Badger cull decision due

Environment secretary expected to green light killing of creatures within strict limits in bid to protect cattle from bovine TB The fate of England’s badgers will be decided at lunchtime on Tuesday in parliament, when the environment secretary will tell MPs whether a proposed cull of the creatures – blamed for helping to spread tuberculosis in cattle – will take place. The decision, to be announced by environment secretary Caroline Spelman, is likely to be in favour of a cull, albeit one that is geographically restricted and that includes strict limits. But a green light for a cull – which farmers have demanded for more than a decade – would be highly controversial. Badgers, though not endangered, are a protected species, and the efficacy of a cull in protecting cattle from TB is widely contested . Lord Krebs, who as a government adviser in 1997 was the architect of a 10-year experimental cull, recently rejected culling as “ineffective” and said other measures would be more productive, such as improved security for cattle to prevent them coming into contact with badgers, and the use of a vaccine when one becomes readily available. Culling badgers, according to the trials, resulted in a 16% reduction in “confirmed new incidence” of TB in cattle herds – an outcome that farming leaders have hailed as a useful strategy, but that Krebs said was not enough to justify a widespread cull. He said: “You cull intensively for at least four years, you will have a net benefit of reducing TB in cattle of 12% to 16%. So you leave 85% of the problem still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of badgers. It doesn’t seem to me an effective way of controlling the disease.” However, the National Farmers’ Union favours a cull, citing evidence from Ireland, where experimental culls have been allowed, and from Australia and New Zealand, where culls of other wild animals have been credited with reducing disease rates. Bovine TB causes tens of millions of pounds of damage annually, with affected farmers forced to discard milk, meat and other products from infected beasts, and sometimes to abandon livestock farming altogether. The worst affected areas are in the south-west of England and Wales, but “hotspots” for the disease occur around the country. Under the proposals before the government, farmers would be allowed to kill badgers using “free shooting”. This would mean trained marksmen targeting badgers, a method that would be paid for by farmers and is likely to be cheaper than the alternative of trapping and killing badgers. Farming leaders said free shooting would enable groups of farmers and landowners to club together to target areas of at least 150 sq km, the minimum likely to be allowed under any new culling rules, and they would only be granted a licence if it can be proven the area is a TB “hotspot”. However, the farming experts acknowledged that, based on experiences in other countries, the cull would have to take place over as long as 20 years in order to have the effect needed. Badgers Bovine tuberculosis Rural affairs Animals Caroline Spelman Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Phone hacking: Murdochs and Brooks set to face MPs’ questions

Rupert Murdoch, son James and Rebekah Brooks face three hours of questions over phone hacking at News International Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation, his son James Murdoch, and Rebekah Brooks, until a week ago the three most powerful figures in British media, will on Tuesday face an unprecedented three hours of questions over the extent to which they knew, approved or subsequently covered up widespread phone hacking at News International. Their confrontation with the culture select committee potentially represents the most severe test of parliamentary authority since the select committee system was established in 1979. It also represents an unprecedented opportunity to cross-examine the normally unchallengeable 80-year-old Rupert Murdoch. James Murdoch, his chairmanship of BSkyB already in question, will face a make-or-break examination of his professional reputation in which he will have to explain why he authorised payments to cover up illegal phone hacking by the News of the World. He will also have to answer charges, laid by then Metropolitan police assistant commissioner, John Yates, as recently as last week, that the company refused to co-operate properly with the police between 2006 and 2010. James Murdoch has admitted that he authorised out-of-court payments to silence the Professional Footballers Association chairman, Gordon Taylor, over the way in which his phone was hacked. He has said he regrets the payments, and was not in full possession of the facts when he authorised them. It is likely that Rupert Murdoch will offer further apologies for the way in which the families of murder victims had their phones hacked. But he has adopted an erratic stance in the past week, at one point telling the Wall Street Journal that News Corp has handled the crisis “extremely well in every way possible,” making just “minor mistakes”. Murdoch said the damage to the company is “nothing that will not be recovered. We have a reputation of great good works in this country.” Asked if he was aggravated by the negative headlines in recent days, he said he was “just getting annoyed. I’ll get over it. I’m tired.” In another sign of the uncertainty over tone within the company, the Wall Street Journal – owned by News Corporation – ran an editorial on Monday condemning the Guardian for its journalism. But at the weekend, his British company bought adverts in newspapers to express its abject regrets at what had happened. News Corp shares have continued to fall in the US and Australia. Murdoch has already been forced to pull out of a complete takeover of BSkyB, and one government minister, Alistair Burt, has claimed he may not be a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence. The Murdochs will be eager to isolate the crisis as a British media problem common to many tabloids, rather than an international problem specific to the culture he generates in his newspapers. Brooks’s lawyers have confirmed she will attend the select committee hearing, even though she was arrested for 12 hours on Sunday. Her solicitor, Stephen Parkinson, said she was not guilty of any criminal offence. Parkinson angrily attacked the police for Brooks’s arrest, saying she had suffered “enormous reputational damage. They put no allegations to her and showed no documents to her linking her to any crime. In time, the police will have to give their account of their actions, in particular their decision to arrest her with the enormous reputational damage this has involved.” Parkinson added: “She remains willing to attend and to answer questions. It is a matter for parliament to decide what issues to put to her and whether her appointment should take place at a later date.” She will be cross-examined separately from the Murdochs, but the questioning may fall apart if her lawyers insist she cannot answer potentially self-incriminating questions. Brooks has appointed David Wilson, chairman of the public relations agency Bell Pottinger, to act as her spokesman. Meeting at the same time as the culture select committee, the home affairs select committee will separately grill both Sir Paul Stephenson, the outgoing Met police commissioner, and Yates, the officer responsible for deciding in the space of eight hours that the Guardian in July 2009 had published no new evidence about the scale of phone hacking. Yates has subsequently admitted at a meeting of the home affairs select committee last week that he made an error in failing to reopen the inquiry, but blamed a lack of co-operation by News International. Both men are now subject to referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for the way in which they handled the phone-hacking inquiry. Yates will be questioned over why he failed to tell either the culture select committee or the home affairs select committee that the former deputy editor of the News of the World Neil Wallis had been employed by the Met as a strategic communications consultant. He had been cross-examined in detail in writing and orally by the MPs Tom Watson and Jim Sheridan over his relationship with Wallis, but did not mention the contract. Watson denies Murdoch will meet his nemesis , saying the session is unlikely to match its advance billing. “There is not going to be a killer blow on Tuesday. Expectations are way too high,” he told the Guardian. “We will get the symbolism of parliament holding these people to account for the first time. We will look for facts, and not just offer rhetoric. This story has been like slicing a cucumber, you just get a little bit closer to the truth each time.” Phone hacking Rupert Murdoch James Murdoch Rebekah Brooks News of the World News International News Corporation Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Media business House of Commons Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Rupertgate Monday – More Scalps Than A Rogaine Seminar.

enlarge John Yates – the latest in an endless line of casualties. Click here to view this media Click here to view this media Less than 24 hours after the abrupt resignation of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson comes the equally abrupt, though somewhat anticipated resignation of Assistant Commissioner John Yates. The seeming labyrinth of corruption, collusion and bribery continues in what has become an unstoppable and irreparably damaging state of affairs, all stemming from the Murdoch story. And hot on the heels of last week’s inquiry appearance that left more questions than answers, John Yates decided there was just too much heat in the kitchen to keep going and so offered his resignation this afternoon. Here are two clips – the first is a BBC Radio 4 Today Program interview from this morning with London Mayor Boris Johnson over the Stephenson resignation. And a few hours later, during the BBC Radio 4 program PM, comes the resignation as-it-happened with John Yates – the second clip. Another day and another batch of casualties. All eyes and ears will be on the inquiry and testimony of the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks, which is scheduled to begin tomorrow at 6:30 am (PDT). Like everything else having to do with this story, it will no doubt offer way too many surprises. Meanwhile, Newcorps stock continues to plummet. Despite certain “news organizations” claims to the contrary, the story has no intention of going away. More undoubtedly will follow. Late Breaking – And if that weren’t enough: It was just reported a few minutes ago (at 12:30 PDT) that initial whistle blower on the News Of The World Phone Hacking Scandal, Sean Hoare, who reported the scandal to the New York Times has been found dead.

Continue reading …
Referring to Tea Party Chris Matthews Tells Pat Buchanan ‘You Want to Join the Crazy Protesters’

MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan got into quite a heated debate on Monday's “Hardball.” At issue was the battle of the debt ceiling with Matthews calling Tea Partiers opposed to raising it “crazy protesters” and telling his guest, “You want to join” them (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: As my hero and your nemesis Winston Churchill once said, “I refuse to be non-partisan between the fire brigade and the fire.” The fire brigade in this case are the grown-ups. People like McConnell, and John McCain, and Lindsey Graham, and John Boehner and the Democrats. They’re trying to put out the fire. I'm not saying the Pelosi crowd aren’t trying to win their side, but generally the grown-ups say, “Stop fighting over this, let’s protect our nation's economy from default,” and you don't want to play that game. PAT BUCHANAN: Chris. MATTHEWS: You want to join the crazy protesters. BUCHANAN: That is a terrible thing to say. You are saying the motivation of the Tea Party is to damage the country. Whatever you say about these people, it's unpopular what they're doing. They’re getting beat up. They’re standing by their principles. MATTHEWS: No, their leaders are telling them there won’t be default. DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: They are willing to see the economy suffer. MATTHEWS: Their crazed leaders them, people like Bachmann and Steve King… BUCHANAN: They’re all independents. MATTHEWS: …are saying, “Oh, you don't have to worry about default, because there won't really be any.” That's the problem. They’re being disillusioned. CORN: They’re playing fire with other people's lives. BUCHANAN: These are Tea Party patriots. CORN: Prices will be paid for this, but not by them. MATTHEWS: Okay, Pat, otherwise known as Mrs. O’Leary’s cow. Thanks for joining us. David, just kidding, of course. You are a patriot in your own strange way, Pat Buchanan. As NewsBusters previously reported , Matthews' reference to Mrs. O'Leary's cow was factually and historically inaccurate. But what would you expect from a man so in the tank for Democrats that he's willing to admit when one of them gives him a tingle up his leg?

Continue reading …

Like Matt Taibbi, David Swanson also thinks the debt ceiling debate is a fraud . Matt Taibbi describes the debt ceiling charade in his own inimitable way: But what is becoming equally obvious, to both sides, is that the Obama White House is using this same artificial calamity to pitch its own increasingly rightward tilt to voters in advance of the 2012 elections. It has been extremely interesting in the last weeks to see observers on both sides of the aisle make this point. Just yesterday, the inimitable New York Times conservative Ross Douthat listed Obama’s not-so-secret rightward push as a the first in a list of reasons why the Republicans should dig in even more, instead of making a sensible deal: Barack Obama wants a right-leaning deficit deal . For months, liberals have expressed frustration with the president’s deficit strategy. The White House made no effort to tie a debt ceiling vote to the extension of the Bush tax cuts last December. It pre-emptively conceded that any increase in the ceiling should be accompanied by spending cuts. And every time Republicans dug in their heels, the administration gave ground. The not-so-secret secret is that the White House has given ground on purpose. Just as Republicans want to use the debt ceiling to make the president live with bigger spending cuts than he would otherwise support, Obama’s political team wants to use the leverage provided by those cra-a-a-zy Tea Partiers to make Democrats live with bigger spending cuts than they normally would support. Douthat makes this observation, then argues that the Republicans should recognize Obama’s hidden motive and hold out for an even better deal. It will then be a race to see which party can abandon employment in favor of deficit reduction faster . He writes: Why? Because the more conservative-seeming the final deal, the better for the president’s re-election effort. In that environment, Republicans have every incentive to push and keep pushing. Since any deal they cut will be used as an election-year prop in 2012, they need to make sure the president actually earns his budget-cutting bona fides. This is interesting because just last week, the liberal opposite of Douthat at the Times, Paul Krugman, came to the same conclusion: It’s getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right. In fact, if all you did was listen to his speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it. And maybe that’s not a false impression; maybe it’s the simple truth. One striking example of this rightward shift came in last weekend’s presidential address, in which Mr. Obama had this to say about the economics of the budget: “Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.” Krugman seems to believe that Obama has basically purged all of his real economic advisors and is doing what Bush did on foreign policy — engaging in complex and portentous policy initiatives at the behest not of experts, but political advisors. Just as Bush had Karl Rove telling him when and how to launch military invasions and drop bombs on unsuspecting foreign human beings in order to establish electoral credentials, Obama might be playing chicken with the budget for the benefit of undecideds in Florida and Ohio. Some of what we’re hearing is presumably coming from the political team, whose members seem to believe that a move toward Republican positions, reminiscent of former President Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” in the 1990s, is the key to Mr. Obama’s re-election. And Mr. Clinton did, indeed, rebound from a big defeat in the 1994 midterms to win big two years later. But some of us think that the rebound had less to do with his rhetorical move to the center than with the five million jobs the economy added over those two years — an achievement not likely to be repeated this time, especially not in the face of harsh spending cuts. The blindness of the DLC-era “Third Way” Democratic Party continues to be an astounding thing. For more than a decade now they have been clinging to the idea that the path to electoral success is social liberalism plus laissez-faire economics – in other words, get Wall Street and corporate America to fund your campaigns, and get minorities, pro-choice and gay marriage activists (who will always be frightened into loyalty by the Tea Party/Christian loonies on the other side) to march at your rallies and vote every November. They’ve abandoned the unions-and-jobs platform that was the party’s anchor since Roosevelt, and the latest innovations all involve peeling back their own policy legacies from the 20th century. Obama’s new plan, for instance, might involve slashing Medicare and Social Security under “pressure” from the Republicans. I simply don’t believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc. That they won’t do these things because they’re afraid of public criticism, and “responding to pressure,” is an increasingly transparent lie. This “Please, Br’er Fox, don’t throw me into dat dere briar patch” deal isn’t going to work for much longer. Just about everybody knows now that they want to go into that briar patch .

Continue reading …