Paul Allen, who claimed a Harry Potter plot was lifted from another book, failed to meet a court payment deadline A claim that JK Rowling lifted the plot of one of her Harry Potter books from the work of another writer has been struck out after the claimant failed to meet a deadline for paying the first instalment of £1.5m into court as security for costs. The court of appeal ordered last week that the claimant, Paul Allen, trustee of the estate of Adrian Jacobs, who died in 1997, should pay the first part of the money into court by 4pm on Friday last week, or the case would be struck out. The claim has now failed as no payment was made. The move marks the end of a bitterly fought battle in which Rowling was accused of having lifted the plot of the fourth book in the series – Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire – from Jacobs’s book, Willy the Wizard. She and her publisher, Bloomsbury, had faced a demand for more than A$1bn (£659m) in damages. Solicitor David Hooper, a partner with the law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, which represented Bloomsbury, said: “They have not paid the money into court. “The whole thing is a scandal – it has been going on for seven years. It was an absolutely ludicrous case.” The claimants had spent well over £1m, he said. Rowling has described the claim that her book was copied from Willy the Wizard as “not only unfounded but absurd”, and said she had never even seen the book until Allen’s claim was launched in 2004. Her solicitor, Gideon Benaim, a partner at Schillings, said: “An enormous amount of time has been wasted having to defend against this claim, when it was quite obvious to us from the outset that it had no chance of success. “As the judge noted, those behind the claim set about publicising the case with a view to exerting pressure and promoting their ‘book’. Quite how they ever thought that we would succumb to pressure indicates a complete lack of understanding on their part. We are glad that the substantive action is now at an end.” Mr Justice Kitchin ordered the payment into court in March, saying that Allen should pay security for 65% of the costs faced by Rowling and her publisher, Bloomsbury. There were to be three staged payments – the first, of £322,691 for Bloomsbury’s costs and £571,613 for Rowling’s costs, to be made by 21 April; the second, £24,650 for Bloomsbury’s costs and £178,441 for Rowling’s costs, to follow by 5 August; and the final payments, of £129,373 for Bloomsbury’s costs and £318,975 for Rowling’s, to be made by 11 November. The court of appeal rejected the appeal against that decision last Thursday, saying the first payment should be made by 4pm on Friday or the case would be struck out. The same claim had already been comprehensively rejected in the US, where a judge in the Manhattan-based US district court for the southern district of New York said that “the contrast between the total concept and feel of the works is so stark that any serious comparison of the two strains credulity”. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was 734 pages long while the Willy the Wizard book consisted of just 16 pages of text, the judge said. He added that the Willy the Wizard book was “entirely devoid of a moral message or intellectual depth”, in contrast to Goblet of Fire, a cumulative work in which one scene built on another, the storyline was highly developed and complex, and there was “a highly developed moral core” and overarching messages were conveyed through the plot. Mr Justice Kitchin, sitting in the chancery division of the high court, had ordered the security for costs payment after having rejected an application by Rowling and Bloomsbury for summary judgment, although he thought the plagiarism claim had an “improbable” chance of success. But he also made it clear that he was unhappy with the way the litigation was being conducted, and the behaviour of Allen and people associated with him. Allen, he said, was a nominal claimant – he was in truth suing for the benefit of another. But the evidence from Allen, a property developer, about the means available to him and those supporting him, was “far from full or candid”. There were also indications of a want of good faith on the part of Allen and those associated with him, and those behind the claim “have also engaged in what I think the defendants fairly describe as thinly veiled threats to publicise the allegation that Ms Rowling has engaged in plagiarism”. David Markson, literary agent for the Jacobs estate, and his brother, Max Markson, a public relations executive in Australia, had tried to pressure Rowling into a settlement and had warned that failure to settle the claim would lead to “unwelcome publicity”, the judge said. Harry Potter JK Rowling guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
One month ago, President Obama blamed the sluggish economy on technologies like ATMs and self-service kiosks, extremely underestimating the value Americans find in innovation. To prove how vital new technology is to the economy, Southern Methodist University professor Michael Cox asked his students how much money they would have to be paid to give up the internet for the rest of their lives, but found few takers to his proposal. Do you think you could be paid to give up the internet forever? Check out a video produced by the free market group the Fund for American Studies after the break, and let us know what you think in the comments. Beyond giving up the internet, the video also questions how much people are willing to pay for new technological devices. Computers once cost millions of dollars, cell phones cost thousands, and cameras cost hundreds, but their prices have all dramatically fallen since their invention due to competition to create the best, most cost-efficient products. Because of what the video explains as a free market system, the wealthy buy new products first at their peak prices. After glitches are ironed out and production costs are lowered, the products gradually become affordable to an increasingly wider audience. The market that allows for this technological growth is also a driving economic force. As Ted Balaker at Big Government explains , About a century ago roughly 40 percent of Americans worked on the farm, but technology–from tractors to new irrigation techniques–has made agriculture vastly more efficient. Today less than 1 percent of us works on the farm. But the fact that we can feed far more people with far fewer workers is progress. Likewise, if food magically appeared in our refrigerators, it would be tough on the remaining agriculture workers, but free food would be one of humanity’s greatest achievements. Technology allows us to do more with fewer workers, and that efficiency allows the folks who would have been farmers or travel agents to get to work meeting society’s other needs and wants by, for instance, creating software. Today America is home to more than a million software engineers. These and countless other jobs were “created” because the market served the needs and wants of consumers. Technology may not create as many jobs as we’d like as quickly as we’d like, but as an engine of growth it’s much more effective than a big blast of government spending. And when Obama’s own economists admit that each job the stimulus “created or saved” cost taxpayers $278,000, it’s clear that the White House’s tweeting technocrats are in no position to criticize efficiency. How much would you have to be paid to give up the internet forever?
Continue reading …Last Year, America Spoke Loud and Clear. We Still Haven’t Changed Our Minds: Tax The Rich, Cut Defense Spending!
July 18, 2011 No CommentA little more than a year ago, I attended the AmericaSpeaks town hall, which was billed as an opportunity for Americans to have their say in the America’s budget decisions. I was so impressed by how informed and assertive my fellow Americans were about standing up for other people, and that’s what I wrote. What I didn’t say was how curious I was about how and why the event was put together. Yes, I knew that Pete Peterson had funded it, but who was pushing it? Who was this AmericaSpeaks group, anyway? I talked to a knowledgeable insider (someone who’d worked on the issue for decades), and he told me AmericaSpeaks didn’t initiate the project – it came from the White House. In fact, he told me, Austen Goolsbee had been tasked by the White House with bringing public opinion in line with supporting cuts to Social Security and Medicare. I didn’t write about it then because my source wasn’t willing to go on the record. But under the current circumstances, I thought I’d tell readers, and remind you all to take what you hear about the need to cut these programs with a very large grain of salt . And by the way? People’s opinions on what to cut haven’t changed! For the first time in a long time, I might have some faith in America. Because no matter how many times the facilitators of this event (which was funded heavily by Pete Peterson, the conservative billionaire who wants to cut Social Security ) tried to steer us toward cutting Social Security and Medicare , the 3500 or so people who took part in this national town hall weren’t buying it. Sure, there were Fox News junkies here and there, and some cautious, low-information voters who kinda-sorta disagreed, but the majority who attended seemed to have their own ideas about how to solve the deficit “problem.” You know what most of them wanted to do? Soak the rich — and cut defense spending. (Are you listening, President Obama?) I thought maybe it was just my table, but when they tabulated the results, it was pretty much the same throughout the crowded ballroom of several hundred attendees. (Whew!) And the national tabulation from the 19 cities across the country showed pretty similiar results. In fact, the only places in which it varied from a progressive agenda were on more complex, less familiar topics like the tax deductions businesses take to keep jobs in this country. (“They leave anyway!” my tablemates exclaimed.)That, in spite of a pretty sophisticated, full-scale marketing push. When you arrived, you were given a glossy information packet and asked to fill out a questionnaire about core values. Now, clearly this approach had been focus-grouped, because the common theme seized on by the moderators was our desire to leave a better world for the next generation. (Apparently they thought this would translate to a spirit of self-sacrifice. Hah!) When we talked about the economic recovery, I said the deficit had nothing to do with it. “It’s only a ‘crisis’ when the GOP is out of power and they want to cut entitlements,” I said. “The top economists are all saying you don’t worry about the deficit in a major recession, so why would we even accept this premise?” (I think I made our facilitator nervous. So did the guy who said he was worried about a double-dip recession.) It was also a happy moment when we pointed out that they forgot to include the possibility of cutting the estate tax in their budget estimates. That, and the loud snickers throughout the room when our hosts showed a video starring Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg .) Even more heartening, though, was how carefully people looked at the questions. You know what else they said? They’d rather see no cuts at all in any social programs than give Congress the go-ahead to slash them. They don’t trust them to look out for the interests of the vulnerable over the corporate interests. (Hell, one guy at my table even quoted Karl Marx ! “Shouldn’t matter who said it if it’s a good idea,” he said.) You know what everyone said they supported instead of Medicare cuts? Medicare for all! In fact, people wanted to spend more money on all social programs! About the only real non-progressive moment came when a couple of the older participants said they thought they could support raising the age at which you got full Social Security benefits. “Wait a minute,” I said. “That’s actually a benefit cut. If you paid in for all those years expecting to get that, you can’t turn around and take it away.” They hadn’t thought of that. We talked about personal responsibility vs. government care, but agreed we just didn’t trust Congress to make those decisions.The facilitator kept saying things like, “Are you keeping in mind future generations, and the young people who aren’t present here today? Are you voting for their interests as well?” Several of us pointed out that a single-payer system was best for their interests – that it would stimulate the economy and generate more jobs. (Although by the time the sentiment was shown on the conference screen, it said “single-payer option in our healthcare system” or something similarly convoluted. Which, you know, kind of defeats the purpose of single-payer and kills the economic benefits. But whatever!) One of the guys at my table went off on a rant about Social Security “running out because the politicians stole the money.”“Hold on, Social Security is not running out,” I said. “It’s completely funded through 2036, and even if we didn’t do a thing, it would still pay out 80% of the benefits. All we have to do is raise the cap on earnings and raise the payroll tax by one percent, and we’d be fine.” (I was in sales. I’m pretty persuasive. Come to think of it, why aren’t progressives holding town hall meetings on Social Security?) Anyway, there were many, many insidious attempts to reframe the debate. But people were pushing back on just about everything – in the nicest, most polite way. But they definitely pushed back. Despite the little hints from the emcee about “denial” and “making hard choices,” the attendees held their ground. And politicians did not get the go-ahead signal to go anywhere near Social Security. Frankly, I was surprised. But in a good way! Now we’ll see just how AmericaSpeaks frames the results. But I want to tell you: Today, Americans did us proud. I hope they keep their guards up.Because this is only the beginning. Obviously, the plan is to wear down our resistance with more clever infomercials like this one. As predicted, it was only the beginning. But understand: This was a long-term plan, one we shouldn’t let the powers that be shove down our throats under the pretext of solving a crisis.
Continue reading …
Scotland Yard’s top counter-terrorism officer quits the day after his boss Sir Paul Stephenson The Metropolitan police assistant commissioner John Yates has become the second high-profile Scotland Yard officer to resign over the phone-hacking scandal. The resignation of Yates – the country’s top counter-terrorism officer – comes a day after his boss, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, stepped down. In a statement, Scotland Yard said: “Assistant commissioner John Yates has this afternoon indicated his intention to resign to the chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA). This has been accepted. AC Yates will make a statement later this afternoon.” His decision to quit came as the Metropolitan Police Authority’s professional standards cases subcommittee held a meeting to consider a slew of complaints against him. The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said the resignations of Yates and Stephenson were “regrettable but right”. He said: “Whatever mistakes have been made at any level in the police service, now is the time to clear them up.” The MPA disciplinary committee, which met on Monday morning, announced that it had decided to suspend Yates pending an inquiry into allegations following the phone-hacking scandal. Cressida Dick would replace Yates in the interim, Johnson said. Green party MPA member Jenny Jones said the resignation should have happened earlier and left Johnson with a lot to explain. “I think it’s a real pity Yates did not go before his boss,” she said. “It just shows who the most honourable person is. Boris has mishandled this from the start and he obviously has lots of questions to answer.” Earlier on Monday it emerged that Yates had been recalled to give evidence before the Commons home affairs select committee on Tuesday. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the committee, said: “The committee has recalled Mr Yates to give evidence tomorrow to clarify aspects of his evidence that he gave to the committee last week and following the statement of Sir Paul Stephenson.” When he appeared before the select committee last Tuesday, Yates expressed regret at his 2009 decision not to reopen the phone-hacking investigation. He insisted he had always told the truth to MPs investigating the issue and suggested that the News of the World “failed to co-operate” with police until the start of this year. He told the committee: “I can assure you all that I have never lied and all the information that I’ve provided to this committee has been given in good faith. “It is a matter of great concern that, for whatever reason, the News of the World appears to have failed to co-operate in the way that we now know they should have with the relevant police inquiries up until January of this year. “They have only recently supplied information and evidence that would clearly have had a significant impact on the decisions that I took in 2009 had it been provided to us.” Vaz told Yates that his evidence was unconvincing and warned him it was “not the end of the matter”. John Yates Phone hacking Metropolitan police Police Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers News International Vikram Dodd Hélène Mulholland Sam Jones guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Scotland Yard’s top counter-terrorism officer quits the day after his boss Sir Paul Stephenson The Metropolitan police assistant commissioner John Yates has become the second high-profile Scotland Yard officer to resign over the phone-hacking scandal. The resignation of Yates – the country’s top counter-terrorism officer – comes a day after his boss, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, stepped down. In a statement, Scotland Yard said: “Assistant commissioner John Yates has this afternoon indicated his intention to resign to the chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA). This has been accepted. AC Yates will make a statement later this afternoon.” His decision to quit came as the Metropolitan Police Authority’s professional standards cases subcommittee held a meeting to consider a slew of complaints against him. The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said the resignations of Yates and Stephenson were “regrettable but right”. He said: “Whatever mistakes have been made at any level in the police service, now is the time to clear them up.” The MPA disciplinary committee, which met on Monday morning, announced that it had decided to suspend Yates pending an inquiry into allegations following the phone-hacking scandal. Cressida Dick would replace Yates in the interim, Johnson said. Green party MPA member Jenny Jones said the resignation should have happened earlier and left Johnson with a lot to explain. “I think it’s a real pity Yates did not go before his boss,” she said. “It just shows who the most honourable person is. Boris has mishandled this from the start and he obviously has lots of questions to answer.” Earlier on Monday it emerged that Yates had been recalled to give evidence before the Commons home affairs select committee on Tuesday. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the committee, said: “The committee has recalled Mr Yates to give evidence tomorrow to clarify aspects of his evidence that he gave to the committee last week and following the statement of Sir Paul Stephenson.” When he appeared before the select committee last Tuesday, Yates expressed regret at his 2009 decision not to reopen the phone-hacking investigation. He insisted he had always told the truth to MPs investigating the issue and suggested that the News of the World “failed to co-operate” with police until the start of this year. He told the committee: “I can assure you all that I have never lied and all the information that I’ve provided to this committee has been given in good faith. “It is a matter of great concern that, for whatever reason, the News of the World appears to have failed to co-operate in the way that we now know they should have with the relevant police inquiries up until January of this year. “They have only recently supplied information and evidence that would clearly have had a significant impact on the decisions that I took in 2009 had it been provided to us.” Vaz told Yates that his evidence was unconvincing and warned him it was “not the end of the matter”. John Yates Phone hacking Metropolitan police Police Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers News International Vikram Dodd Hélène Mulholland Sam Jones guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
A nine-year-old boy who was blindfolded and interrogated was among the children held for throwing rocks at soldiers Over the past five years, Israel’s military has detained more than 800 Palestinian youths and children for pelting Israeli soldiers with rocks, and has interrogated and jailed many of them, a human rights group said in a report. Drawing on military statistics and interviews, Israeli rights group B’Tselem counted 835 minors taken into custody from 2005 to early 2011, including 34 children who were 13 or younger. In one case, B’Tselem cited the case of an eight-year-old who was seized in the West Bank in February. Soldiers released the boy after realising he was not the child they were after: they wanted his nine-year-old brother. They then handcuffed the nine-year-old, blindfolded him and took him to a detention centre where he was interrogated and held for five hours, according to the report. He was released after it was determined that he was a minor. An Israeli military spokeswoman said around 160 civilians and soldiers had been hurt in violent attacks by minors. Of those, 10 were wounded by projectiles, but the spokeswoman, speaking of condition of anonymity, said she did not know the extent of their injuries. B’Tselem said night raids, handcuffing, blindfolds, interrogations and the denial of access to lawyers for children for hours at a time were frequently disproportionate. “The authorities need to enforce the law, but they should do it in lawful ways that are appropriate for the crime and the people committing the crime,” said the report’s author, Naama Baumgarten-Sharon. The Israeli military spokeswoman Lt Col Avital Leibovich said that in general the military handled children with sensitivity and their arrests were a justified response to violence. The B’Tselem report, released on Monday, noted the situation for child detainees had improved after the military built special juvenile courts, but said Palestinian minors were denied rights afforded to Israeli children. Israel has complained for decades about Palestinian children taking part in often violent demonstrations, claiming they are being exploited. Many Palestinian parents see their children as young fighters resisting Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Rock throwing, specifically, is seen as symbolic of their struggle. The issue has flared in the past few years as Palestinians hold weekly demonstrations in West Bank villages in which young men and boys pelt rocks and chunks of concrete at Israeli soldiers. Israeli soldiers have used teargas, rubber bullets and sometimes live fire in response, killing some demonstrators and badly wounding others. Of the more than 800 minors charged with hurling rocks over the past five years, only one youth was found guilty in a court trial. The other 93% were given jail terms in plea bargains, agreeing mostly because they feared being detained while they waited for their cases to reach trial, said Baumgarten-Sharon. More than 500 of the youths were around 16 years old, the report said. Another 255 were 14 and 15, and 34 were 13 or younger. The older the youths, the more likely they were to be given longer sentences, sometimes of months in jail. Leibovich said the responsibility lay with the children’s families and Palestinian groups, whom she accused of sending out children to confront Israelis. “We are talking about minors that actually use rocks and explosive devices to target Israeli civilians and soldiers,” she said. Palestinian territories Israel Children Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Official version of events disputed as Uighur assault on police building raises fears of new violence An assault on a Chinese police station in Xinjiang has left at least four people dead, the state media has reported, raising concerns about a fresh outbreak of violence in the restive far western region. The confrontation in Hotan – near one of China’s most important energy-producing areas – comes two years after the deadliest ethnic rioting in the country’s recent history left at least 197 people dead. Details of the police station attack are contested. The official Xinhua news agency said on Monday that “thugs” forced their way into the building, started fires and took hostages before security reinforcements killed several attackers in a gunfight that also claimed the lives of two civilians and two officers. “Six hostages were successfully rescued,” it said, citing the ministry of public security. Local police confirmed the report and said they were planning countermeasures. “It’s true,” an officer at Hotan police station said by phone. “We are all awaiting assignment.” He declined to give his name or further details. This version of events is disputed by the World Uighur Congress, which wants more independence and greater rights for the largely Muslim, ethnic group in Xinjiang. Dilxat Raxit, the Sweden-based spokesman for the WUC, said the shooting occurred in the main bazaar when a large number of locals tried to protest about the “disappearances” of young Uighurs taken away by the security forces. “The Chinese government should not claim this was an attack. It started as a demonstration,” he said. “Many Han migrants have moved into this area and local people are losing their land. Young Uighurs are being illegally imprisoned.” Xinjiang has had several murderous confrontations in recent years. In 2008, 16 police officers were killed in a raid on a paramilitary border police headquarters in Kashgar . The following year, the government says 197, mostly Han Chinese, people were killed in a riot by Uighurs in the regional capital, Urumqi. The unrest is a major concern for the government in Beijing, which is increasingly dependent on Xinjiang for oil, gas and coal to power the economy. Many Han Chinese migrants have moved into the region to cash in on this boom, prompting tensions with the indigenous population. Xinjiang China Protest Jonathan Watts guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Latest leak is likely to do nothing to mend oil giant’s reputation in US after 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster BP reported yet another pipeline leak at its Alaskan oilfields, frustrating the oil giant’s attempts to rebuild its reputation after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. BP has said that a pipeline at its 30,000 barrel per day Lisburne field, which is currently closed for maintenance, ruptured during testing and spilled a mixture of methanol and oily water onto the tundra. The company has a long history of oil spills at its Alaskan pipelines – accidents which have hurt its public image in the US, where around 40% of its assets are based. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation said the spill occurred on Saturday and amounted to 2,100 to 4,200 gallons. A BP spokesman said the cleanup was under way and the company would determine the cause “in due course.” Lisburne, which is managed as part of the Greater Prudhoe Bay Unit, has produced no oil since 18 June, according to Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission records, suggesting maintenance work requiring a prolonged shutdown. The spokesman said the field had been undergoing “its annual maintenance.” BP’s blown out Macondo well caused the worst offshore oil spill in US history after the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded , spewing almost 5m barrels of oil into the Gulf and putting BP’s future in the US at risk. Previous problems including leaks from corroded pipelines in Alaska and the fatal Texas City refinery blast in 2005 have already earned the company a poor reputation for safety, something analysts say it needs to address if it is to continue to grow in North America. BP shares were down 1.089% at 454p this morning. Production from the entire Lisburne field remains shut off while the spill is addressed, Alaska officials said. Immediate efforts are focused on containment and cleanup, said Tom DeRuyter, the state on-scene coordinator for the Department of Environmental Conservation. The methanol-produced water mix has spread into wet tundra as well as onto a gravel pad, bringing risks to slow-growing vegetation, DeRuyter said. “You have actively growing plants and they’re very susceptible to the contaminants.” He went on to say that the pipeline will also have to be dug up to allow for an investigation into why it failed. Resumption of normal operations at that part of the field may require a relatively long wait. “I think they’re looking at trying to get that pad back up before freeze-up,” he added. Oil spills BP Pollution Oil BP oil spill Fossil fuels Commodities Oil Energy Energy industry Oil and gas companies United States Alaska guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Honeymoon murder suspect facing extradition to South Africa is deemed too ‘fragile’ to face British court A British man accused of arranging for his wife to be murdered while they were on honeymoon in South Africa would be considered unfit to stand trial if he was facing a British court, his extradition hearing has been told. Shrien Dewani faces being sent back to South Africa to be put on trial for allegedly conspiring to kill his wife, Anni, in a fake carjacking in Cape Town. However, he has been diagnosed as suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder and his barrister, Clare Montgomery QC, argued that if he was facing domestic proceedings he would be “simply unfit to stand trial”. Dewani, who is being treated in a medium secure hospital, was excused from staying in court to hear proceedings after Montgomery claimed it would be “inhuman” to force him to remain. Montgomery said Dewani had had to begin his journey from the Fromeside hospital in Bristol to Woolwich crown court in east London, where the extradition hearing is taking place, at 4am every morning he was required to appear. Travelling by car, being exposed to loud noises and the presence of other people exacerbated his condition, Montgomery said. Dewani sat in the dock looking dishevelled and confused as Montgomery asked for him to be allowed to leave. District judge Howard Riddle accepted that Dewani’s health was “fragile” and agreed that in the “exceptional” circumstances he could be excused from attending. Dewani was led from the dock looking unsteady on his feet and disoriented. Anni Dewani, 28, was shot dead in the back of a taxi in Cape Town on 13 November after a hijacking alleged to have been staged by Dewani and three other men. Dewani, from Bristol, and his family, who run a successful string of care homes, deny strongly he had any involvement in his wife’s death. But the South African authorities insist that he should return to Cape Town to be put on trial. Over the next three days Judge Riddle is to hear claims from Dewani’s lawyers that he is too ill to be extradited. Dewani’s team is also claiming that his human rights would be infringed if he were sent back because he would not receive the treatment he needed in South Africa’s prisons as he awaited trial and if he was convicted of the crime. Judge Deon Hurter Van Zyl, who heads an independent inspectorate that monitors conditions in South African prisons, was asked by Montgomery about gang and sexual violence. She suggested to him that most prisoners were sexually assaulted even before they actually reached prison in holding cells, police stations and vehicles as part of “initiation” rites. Van Zyl accepted there were many problems within the system and staff lacked pride, commitment and dedication. He also told the court inmates with mental health conditions mixed with other prisoners and there were not sufficient facilities for dealing with those who suffered from psychiatric problems. At an earlier stage of the hearing in May, the court was told Dewani would be particularly vulnerable to attacks in prison because of his good looks, the fact that a woman was his alleged victim and allegations – denied by his family – that he is gay. The South African authorities have stipulated which prisons Dewani would be held in while awaiting trial and if convicted and insist he would be safe and cared for. But the court has also heard that future governments would not be bound by any promises made now. Also at the May hearing, the South African authorities revealed they had a witness who would claim that seven months before the killing Dewani had said he “needed to find a way out” of the marriage. The witness claimed Dewani had said he would be disowned by his family if he broke off the engagement with Anni. Dewani’s family insist the marriage was a happy one. Dewani is wanted for kidnapping, robbery with aggravated circumstances, conspiracy to commit murder and obstructing the administration of justice. The extradition hearing is being heard by Westminster magistrates, sitting at Woolwich crown court. Dewani murder case London South Africa Crime Africa Steven Morris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Tea party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) Sunday dismissed calls for Congress to hold hearings to find out if Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. had broken U.S. law by hacking phones or bribing police. “We need to let law enforcement work here,” DeMint told NBC’s David Gregory. “Congress has got a big issue in front of us. We need to handle our own business for a change. And the focus this week is on the only plan we’ve got, and that’s cut, cap and balance.” But Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) disagreed. “I can tell you that there are questions about whether the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has been violated by Rupert Murdoch and his news empire, and what’s going on in England is startling,” Durbin said. “To think of the extent that they went to break the law to try to report a story. We need to follow through with the FBI investigation and also with congressional investigations.”
Continue reading …