Recently the New York Times has run several stories on various abortion legislation in the states, none more slanted than Eric Eckholm’s piece on Monday, “ New Laws in 6 States Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks .” In February, Eckholm called the abortion providers Planned Parenthood “ advocates for women’s health ,” and his new story had a similar case of bias by omission involving abortion providers. Yet Eckholm easily managed to identify “anti-abortion campaigners.” Dozens of new restrictions passed by states this year have chipped away at the right to abortion by requiring women to view ultrasounds, imposing waiting periods or cutting funds for clinics. But a new kind of law has gone beyond such restrictions, striking at the foundation of the abortion rules set out by the Supreme Court over the last four decades. These laws, passed in six states in little more than a year, ban abortions at the 20th week after conception, based on the theory that the fetus can feel pain at that point — a notion disputed by mainstream medical organizations in the United States and Britain. Opponents of abortion say they expect that discussion of fetal pain — even in the face of scientific criticism — will alter public perception of abortion, and they have made support for the new laws a litmus test for Republicans seeking the presidency. The text box emphasized: “Citing fetal pain, a powerful notion despite a lack of scientific support.” Only 1.5 percent of the 1.21 million abortions each year, or about 18,000, occur later than 20 weeks after conception, and many of these involve medical emergencies, said Ms. Nash of the Guttmacher Institute. Still, the new laws also place stricter, and what some say are unconstitutional , limits on medical exceptions as well. The Guttmacher Institute is an abortion-rights organization, yet Eckholm only referred to it as a “research group.” Then there’s this observation from what sounds like an objective medical source: Based on current knowledge, medical organizations generally reject the notion that a fetus can feel pain before 24 weeks. “The suggestion that a fetus at 20 weeks can feel pain is inconsistent with the biological evidence,” said Dr. David A. Grimes, a prominent researcher and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine . “To suggest that pain can be perceived without a cerebral cortex is also inconsistent with the definition of pain.” But that’s not all Grimes is; he’s also a practicing abortionist who won an award from the National Abortion Federation in 1987 and served on the group’s board of directors, according to his online curriculum vitae. Why didn’t Eckholm mention that his source is an avid activist and practitioner of the
Continue reading …• Hit F5 for the latest or select the auto-refresh button below • And email your thoughts to katy.murrells@guardian.co.uk First set: Sharapova 0-2 Lisicki* In fact it’s Sharapova who’s showing the nerves at the moment, as she double faults on the first point and then throws in another unforced error. Lisicki then unleashes on the forehand to bring up three break points in double-quick time. 0-40 . And a second double fault hands Lisicki the game. First set: *Sharapova 0-1 Lisicki (*denotes next server) “Boom Boom” hits the ground running, opening up with a fearsome serve, before holding to 15. No sign of nerves yet from the 21-year-old, who’s appearing in her first grand slam semi-final. The players are already out and warming up, leaving me with next to no time to catch my breath, let alone have a comfort break. This could get uncomfortable. Anyway, these two have only met once before, in Miami earlier this year, when Sharapova prevailed 6-2 6-0. “She kind of kicked my butt last time,” said Lisicki. “But it’s a semi-final. I got there playing very good tennis. I have nothing to lose. There are no easy matches at that stage. I’m just going to play the best I can.” Afternoon . Sorry for the rushed preamble, I’ve just scampered over from the Petra Kvitova v Victoria Azarenka game-by-game . So with Kvitova through to her first grand slam final, can Sabine Lisicki do the same, or will Maria Sharapova justify her status as the title favourite and shriek her way into a second Wimbledon final? “Boom Boom” Lisicki, as the German is known, has been blasting opponents off the court this fortnight, and has a huge serve. No surface is better suited to the 21-year-old’s game than grass. Though of course Sharapova’s no stranger to bludgeoning the life out of a tennis ball, and played like a woman possessed in the quarter-finals, so this should be a brutal match. Both have had their fair share of injury problems. This is Sharapova’s first grand slam semi-final since the 2008 Australian Open, after which she had a career-threatening shoulder injury. It’s been a long road back, and many lesser characters would probably have given up, especially if they had her millions in the bank. Meanwhile Lisicki is only playing here by virtue of a wildcard, after missing five months last year when an ankle problem was misdiagnosed. And that’s without mentioning last month’s incident at the French Open, when she had to be carried off court on a stretcher with cramp. Wimbledon 2011 Wimbledon Maria Sharapova Tennis Katy Murrells guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• Hit F5 for the latest or select the auto-refresh button below • And email your thoughts to katy.murrells@guardian.co.uk First set: Sharapova 0-2 Lisicki* In fact it’s Sharapova who’s showing the nerves at the moment, as she double faults on the first point and then throws in another unforced error. Lisicki then unleashes on the forehand to bring up three break points in double-quick time. 0-40 . And a second double fault hands Lisicki the game. First set: *Sharapova 0-1 Lisicki (*denotes next server) “Boom Boom” hits the ground running, opening up with a fearsome serve, before holding to 15. No sign of nerves yet from the 21-year-old, who’s appearing in her first grand slam semi-final. The players are already out and warming up, leaving me with next to no time to catch my breath, let alone have a comfort break. This could get uncomfortable. Anyway, these two have only met once before, in Miami earlier this year, when Sharapova prevailed 6-2 6-0. “She kind of kicked my butt last time,” said Lisicki. “But it’s a semi-final. I got there playing very good tennis. I have nothing to lose. There are no easy matches at that stage. I’m just going to play the best I can.” Afternoon . Sorry for the rushed preamble, I’ve just scampered over from the Petra Kvitova v Victoria Azarenka game-by-game . So with Kvitova through to her first grand slam final, can Sabine Lisicki do the same, or will Maria Sharapova justify her status as the title favourite and shriek her way into a second Wimbledon final? “Boom Boom” Lisicki, as the German is known, has been blasting opponents off the court this fortnight, and has a huge serve. No surface is better suited to the 21-year-old’s game than grass. Though of course Sharapova’s no stranger to bludgeoning the life out of a tennis ball, and played like a woman possessed in the quarter-finals, so this should be a brutal match. Both have had their fair share of injury problems. This is Sharapova’s first grand slam semi-final since the 2008 Australian Open, after which she had a career-threatening shoulder injury. It’s been a long road back, and many lesser characters would probably have given up, especially if they had her millions in the bank. Meanwhile Lisicki is only playing here by virtue of a wildcard, after missing five months last year when an ankle problem was misdiagnosed. And that’s without mentioning last month’s incident at the French Open, when she had to be carried off court on a stretcher with cramp. Wimbledon 2011 Wimbledon Maria Sharapova Tennis Katy Murrells guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …We already know that Glenn Beck sees the world through his own peculiar filter, but this one really takes the cake. Notice the trembling lip, the catch in his voice. He’s so into his vision of himself as the Second Coming. Poor Glenn Beck, the man who’s targeted so many liberals that they got death threats and lost their jobs… It wouldn’t even occur to him to have an “aha!” moment: Today on his radio show, Glenn Beck tearfully recounted an incident from Bryant Park last night when he and his wife and daughter turned up to see a showing of the Hitchcock classic The 39 Steps. Apparently some fellow picnickers began harassing the Becks, even at one point “accidentally” kicking a glass of wine onto his wife’s back. It sounded genuinely unpleasant and a little scary, though the famously paranoid Beck played up the dramatics in his retelling. “I swear to you I think, if I had suggested, and I almost did, ‘Wow, does anybody have a rope? Because there’s [a] tree here. You could just lynch me.’ And I think there would have been a couple in the crowd that would have,” he said. He called Gawker, which ran some user-submitted photos of the Becks, “especially horrible.” “They have done everything they can to stalk me and my family,” he said. “They’ve put my family in jeopardy in their own home.” Then, for almost ten minutes, Beck went on an extended rant against New Yorkers and the type of twentysomethings that harassed him. “These people were some of the most hateful people I had ever seen,” he said. “I was told a lot last night about how New York hates people like me.” “I really feel sorry for you,” he continued. “Here you are, 25 years old, and you are so lost and so arrogant and so convinced that you are absolutely 100 percent right. And you are helping craft a system that is fueled by hate. You’re being used, and you don’t even know it. You’re building a system fueled by the very things you say you hate: special interests, the rich, the powerful, global corporations — that’s who’s pulling your string.” So that tearful part where he’s so worried about leaving his family to the mercy of the horrible crowd? He forgot to mention the bodyguards. Here’s a different version from someone who was sitting behind him: Just a quick FYI -saw your article on Mr. Beck and his numerous FALSE claims about the way that he was treated at Bryant Park last night. Myself and several of my friends were seated immediately behind Mr. Beck & co (have pictures) and I can tell you that while the crowd was certainly not *thrilled* that he had shown up, his family was left completely alone, and for the most part he was too. Conversely, it was his security detail (two body guards) that seemed to be unnecessarily prickly with the crowd, scolding myself and my friends for acrobatics and other harmless activities taking place well before the movie started, and contributing to a considerably less relaxed atmosphere than is typically experienced during BPMN (I’ve been going for about six years now). It was my friend that spilled the glass of wine on Tanya -and I can assure you that it was a complete accident . A happy one, to be sure, but nonetheless a complete and utter accident. As soon as the wine spilled (and I question how Tanya became soaked from a half glass of wine) apologies were made and my friends pretty much scrambled to give Tanya & co napkins -no doubt aware that it would look terrible and that their actions could be perceived as purposeful. No words were exchanged after that, as I think that it became pretty clear to Beck & co that my friends and I were doing everything in our capacity to help clean the “mess”. I’m sure it’s unnecessary to point out the hypocrisy in Glen’s statements that we were being hateful. I can assure him that we don’t need his sympathy. Incidentally, none of us have made a career of “spewing hate” on the radio, or any other media platform. We live our lives intolerant only of those who don’t tolerate: We have chosen New York as our city for that very reason. We do things like go to Bryant Park Movie Night, and vote to legalize gay marriage. We don’t taunt Glen, or his family. And we certainly don’t waste our wine, even on Tanya. Glenn, you’re such a liar. I feel sorry for you.
Continue reading …Residents told to keep children and pets indoors after ‘unfriendly’ 2.3-metre reptile goes missing Police warned that children and pets should be kept indoors after a 2.3-metre boa constrictor described by its owner as unfriendly escaped in Ipswich. “Its owner has been unable to find it,” Suffolk police said in a statement , adding that the female reptile, which kills its prey through asphyxiation, was “last seen in its cage at about 6am” on Wednesday. A police spokesman said: “The owner describes the snake as unfriendly, and it might bite if approached. She was last fed about three weeks ago and is due a feed. However, it is not venomous. It is nocturnal and is likely to hunt at night and will bask in the warm grass or on rocks in the sun during the day. It will hide for example under sheds when not hunting or warming.” An active search for the reptile, called Diva, has not been undertaken. It is described as dark and light brown patterned, with creamy white spots on its back and a reddish-brown mark at the end of its tail. The RSPCA has been notified. Police said while they understood the animal would feed only on small animals such as mice and rats, a risk to the public could not be ruled out. “It is possible the breeding season could have encouraged the boa constrictor to go out hunting,” the spokesman added. Animals Animal behaviour Pets Wildlife Adam Gabbatt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Rhee Kyeong-mi used to struggle to find enough food. Now she is finding it hard to adjust to abundance and choice in the South The AK Plaza in Suwon is like any other shopping mall in South Korea: a temple to consumer electronics, fashion and fast food. The Tea and Bakery on the top floor is decorated with a quirky selection of English words: passion, sleepiness, refreshment and comfort. On a recent summer day, a young couple at one table were absorbed in their smartphones, occasionally looking up to exchange smiles. At another table, two Buddhist nuns in grey robes were taking tea and chatting. And at a third, a young woman in a red gingham dress was sitting silently looking into her lap. The woman, Rhee Kyeong-mi, looked as though she ought to fit in perfectly with the buzzing, confident culture around her. The slim, fashionably dressed 21-year-old Korean was seemingly just like dozens of others spending a summer’s day shopping. Only her accent would betray her very different origins. Rhee (a pseudonym to protect her and her family) is a freshly arrived North Korean defector who only three months ago was struggling to survive in a labour camp. This was her first time in a shopping mall and she was somewhat overwhelmed. “It’s just too big, too fantastic,” she said in an awed whisper. Until now, she had spent almost every month of her 21 years focused on finding enough food to stay alive, and the abundance and choice around her were dizzying. Like most of the 23,000 North Koreans who have escaped to the South in the past two decades, Rhee spent three months in Hanawon, a resettlement centre about 20 kilometres from Sowun, where counsellors tried to help her adjust to the transition from one of the poorest, most repressive societies in the world to one of the richest, fastest growing countries in Asia. Hanawon teaches new arrivals how to go to the shops, how to run a bank account and how to understand the English words used increasingly in colloquial and commercial South Korean. But it is an also experiment with broader implications. Teams of psychologists and sociologists are watching to see how people such as Rhee get on because if North Korea collapses the South will have to help 24 million people adapt from a life spent in the world’s biggest prison. Rhee was born in 1990 in Musan in North Hamgyong province, near the border with China. Her father died when she was three, but she is not certain why. North Korea was in the grip of a famine which eventually killed 1-3 million people. People survived by circumventing the state farming system by any means possible. “When my mother was still alive, she went up into the mountains and found a piece of land where we could grow food without being seen,” Rhee said. “My mother and sister did the farming and I would walk three hours to the market and help sell what we had: corn, beans, grain, rabbits and chicken.” In 2005, when Rhee was 15, her mother died. “She hurt her foot farming and it got infected and there was no hospital care. So really she was killed by the lack of hospital services.” Rhee and her sister, Sang-mi, then 18, were left to fend for themselves. They kept their little plot of land going for two years, but could not grow as much food. Rhee was depressed and lonely without their mother and Sang-mi pined for her boyfriend, Choi Myung-chul, who had escaped into China in 2005, telling her he would come back for her in three months. Once on the other side, he found it was too dangerous to return. In 2007, the two sisters and two of Sang-mi’s friends decided to escape themselves, wading across the Yalu river that divides the north-eastern corner of North Korea from Manchuria. The Yalu is fast-flowing, treacherous and well-patrolled, but the four girls knew a spot where it was only waist-deep and deserted. They did not have much of a plan, however. Sang-mi hoped to find Choi, not knowing he had already set off on the long trek across the Gobi desert to Mongolia. China does not allow South Korean embassies on its territories to issue passports to North Korean escapees, no doubt to avoid the human flood that would ensue. An estimated 250,000 have simply settled in southern China. Those with more money and ambition head for South Korean missions in Mongolia and Thailand. The Mongolian route is not to be taken lightly. “It took three days to cross the desert, and sometimes we were up to our middles in snow. We ate snow to stay alive,” recalled Choi, now also in Suwon. Newly arrived in China, the four girls headed to relatives of one of Sang-mi’s friends, but they had no room and directed them to a Chinese man in Yanji city in Jilin province who they said would put them up. He did take them in and feed them, but at a price. His wooden house was divided into two. The man lived with his family on one side, and on the other North Korean girls sat at computers in front of webcams, performing for sex chatlines. “We had to pretend to be South Korean women to talk to South Korean men. We were trained to dress like South Korean women and told what to say. But we did it by typing in text. There was no sound, so the customers wouldn’t know we were from the North,” Rhee said. “We received meals, but no pay, and we couldn’t go outside. It was like a prison. There were four of us there for nearly a year. At one point, one of the girls escaped, but she came back on her own a month later. She knew no one there, and didn’t know the language.” After 11 months of incarceration, Sang-mi and one of the other girls ran away when one of their captor’s friends was left in charge. They persuaded him that they were allowed out for a break. Soon after they disappeared, the police knocked on the door. Whether there was a connection between the two events, Rhee does not know, or she is reluctant to speculate. She and the other remaining girl were deported to North Korea and imprisoned in a labour camp outside the city of Hoeryong. Judging from her description, it may have been North Korean’s infamous Camp 22, the biggest concentration camp in the country. “We were in huge wooden cabins in the mountains. There were about 1,000 women in our cabin and we were so squashed together we had to sleep with our legs interlocking,” she said. “Mostly there were people like me who had tried to escape and ordinary criminals. We had rice husks to eat and had to work cutting down trees and dragging the timber back with chains.” “When it got really cold in winter, five or six women would die every day and the other prisoners would have to carry the bodies out. I still dream about that.” Rhee believes she survived because she was excused the heaviest labour, on account of her youth and a congenital heart condition. Instead, she was allow to knit indoors in the winter. After 18 months in Hoeryong, with only a few days left of her sentence, Rhee had her first visitor — a man she had never met before. Sang-mi had reached South Korea and found Choi. He was able to borrow enough money to hire a Chinese “broker” to look for Rhee. The broker’s first move was to visit Hoeryong and bribe the guards to check if she was still alive. On the day of her release, another man was waiting at the gate to take her across the Tumen river, which marks that segment of the border with China. On the other side, a third broker was waiting to take Rhee on the next stage of her journey: a long boat ride westwards along the Tumen and then a three-day mountain trek into Thailand. Together with the air fare to Seoul, the whole package cost Choi $10,000. He still has $4,000 to pay off, but he has good prospects. He is studying management at the local university. Rhee is still living off her resettlement grant and looking for a job. She has no South Korean friends yet and finds their language, heavily studded with foreign words, hard to understand. But at least she has relatives nearby. Many North Korean escapees have to cope alone. “Everything is different here. It is almost impossible to adjust,” said Cho Myung-chul, a former Communist party ideologue who defected in 1994 and now runs an education centre run by the South Korean unification ministry. The centre is supposed to help prepare people for the eventual collapse of the North Korean regime and its absorption by the South – an event Cho views as inevitable, if not imminent. “These people have been made to idealise Kim Jong-il and the North Korean regime, and when they come here they suffer real psychological pain. They can’t get a job. They miss their family and friends and often feel like they drifting alone here. We give them money and education but we have to do more to rescue them from despair.” With its abundance of food, its freedom, and its strong economy South Korea should feel like a real paradise, but after a lifetime living in the cruel hoax of the “workers’ paradise” north of the demarcation line, the change can be traumatic. East Germans found it hard to adjust to the west but the income differential in Korea is up to 10 times greater. No one knows what will happen if and when 24 million have to make the leap. North Korea South Korea Julian Borger guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Fourth largest industrial nation set to replace nuclear with renewable energy German MPs have overwhelmingly approved plans to shut down the country’s nuclear plants by 2022, putting Europe’s biggest economy on the road to an ambitious build-up of renewable energy. The lower house of parliament voted 513-79 for the shutdown plan drawn up by Angela Merkel’s government after Japan’s post-tsunami nuclear disaster . Most of the opposition voted in favour. MPs sealed the shutdown of eight of the older reactors, which have been off the grid since March. Germany’s remaining nine reactors will be shut down in stages by the end of 2022. By 2020, Germany wants to double the share of energy stemming from water, wind, sun or biogas to at least 35%. Until this year, nuclear energy accounted for a little less than a quarter of Germany’s power. “Some people abroad ask: will Germany manage this? Can it be done? It is the first time that a major industrial country has declared itself ready to carry through this technological and economic revolution,” the environment minister, Norbert Röttgen, told MPs. “The message from today is this: the Germans are getting to work,” he said. “This will be good for our country, because we all stand together. So let’s get to work.” The government hasn’t put a price tag on the plan to shift to renewable sources. “Of course it will cost something, but it won’t overburden anyone,” Röttgen said. The vote completed a spectacular about-turn on nuclear energy by Merkel’s centre-right coalition. Only last year, it had amended a previous centre-left government’s plan to abandon nuclear power by the early 2020s and extended the life span of Germany’s 17 reactors by an average of 12 years. Merkel said the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant had prompted her to re-evaluate the risks of nuclear power. Opposition leaders taunted the government over its U-turn, which Merkel initiated less than two weeks before two state elections in March. “We are approving this out of full conviction, but you are doing it merely to preserve power,” said Sigmar Gabriel, the head of the centre-left Social Democrats. Renate Künast, the co-leader of the Greens’ parliamentary group, said she didn’t care why Merkel had changed course: “For me, it’s enough of a historical irony that you now have to come close to what you fought for decades,” she said. “Now no one can deny that Germany wants an energy turnaround,” added Künast. Her party has always opposed nuclear energy, which has been unpopular in Germany since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster sent radioactivity drifting over the country. Still, she complained that the government’s renewable energy target was unambitious, arguing that Germany should be aiming for a share of well over 40%. “The world is watching us now, and we will have to do justice to that,” Künast said. “That is the scale of this task: we must show that this works for the fourth biggest industrial country.” Parliament’s upper house, which represents Germany’s 16 states, is expected to endorse the plans next week, but much of the package does not formally require its approval. Germany Nuclear power Renewable energy Angela Merkel Europe Energy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Police minister says legislation needed to resolve doubts over 80,000 suspects affected by judgment Emergency legislation is to be introduced to overturn a court ruling that has severely restricted police powers to detain suspects for questioning and plunged police bail laws into chaos. The police minister, Nick Herbert, told MPs the new law was needed because the status of 80,000 suspects currently bailed by police forces across England and Wales had been placed in doubt. Earlier on Thursday the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, warned of serious consequences of the court ruling, adding that there were currently 175 murder suspects out on bail in London. Ministers and police chiefs are in urgent talks over interim measures to deal with the situation in the next fortnight or so before the emergency legislation restores the situation. They have concerns about whether they have enough police cells to detain suspects and worry that they may have to drop cases completely. “In some cases it will mean that suspects who would normally be released on bail are detained for longer. It is likely that in most forces, there will not be enough capacity to detain everybody in police cells,” admitted Herbert. “In other cases, it risks impeding the police to such an extent that the investigation will have to be stopped because the detention time has run out. The judgment will also affect the ability of the police to enforce bail conditions.” The ruling by a district judge in Salford, which was upheld by the high court, overturned 25 years of an interpretation of the law under which suspects could be released on police bail and recalled for questioning weeks and even months later as long as the total time in detention was no more than 96 hours. The ruling means that forces are only allowed to hold suspects for up to 96 hours continuously before they have to either charge or release them. Any time spent out on bail must now be counted towards the 96 hours. Herbert, who was answering an urgent Commons question from Labour on the police crisis, told MPs that the home secretary, Theresa May, was in Madrid at a meeting of the G6 interior ministers. He told MPs that police believed the ruling would have a serious impact on their ability to investigate crime and with 80,000 suspects on police bail around the country they could not wait for an appeal to be heard by the supreme court. “That is why the Association of Chief Police Officers [Acpo] has today advised the home secretary that new legislation is needed. We agree with that assessment. So I can tell the house that we will urgently bring forward emergency legislation to overturn the ruling,” he said. “That emergency legislation will clarify the position and provide assurance that the police can continue to operate on the basis on which they have been operating for many years. We are also seeking urgent further advice on how to mitigate the practical problems caused by the court’s decision in this interim period.” It will take at least eight days for parliament to pass the necessary legislation but Herbert said the ruling had to be reversed because it had upset a careful balance which had stood for a quarter of a century, and that it impeded the police’s work. The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, pledged opposition support but demanded to know why it had taken six weeks since the high court upheld the original ruling on 19 May for ministers to act. Herbert claimed the written judgment had not been available to Home Office lawyers until 17 June. When the scale of the problem “became clear” ministers were informed on 24 June: “If any suspect is released on bail, the judgment means they are, in effect, still in police detention. This means that time spent on bail should count towards any maximum period of precharge detention. It causes us great concern.” Police Liberal-Conservative coalition Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Two sides expected to agree price to tie-in with BSkyB’s financial results Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp and BSkyB could agree the terms of a £9.3bn takeover bid as early as 29 July, when the satellite broadcaster is due to announce its full-year results. The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, gave News Corp the green light to acquire the 60.9% of BSkyB it does not already own on Thursday – subject to a short public consultation that ends midday 8 July – on the proviso that Sky News is spun off as a separate company to allay plurality concerns. Observers believe Hunt is keen to give final confirmation by 19 July when the summer parliamentary recess begins – otherwise the decision will be delayed until parliament returns on 5 September. Nick Bell, equity analyst at Jefferies, says there is a strong possibility the two sides will reach the terms of agreement on price by 29 July to tie-in with BSkyB’s financial results. He adds there is a couple of “sticking points” – how to value Sky News and including the BSkyB’s final dividend in the bid price – but doesn’t see these as a major impediment to agreeing a price. This view is supported by Chris Goodall, an analyst at Enders, who argues the two sides are likely to reach agreement on price “within a month” of Hunt’s final approval. “Negotiations between News Corporation and the independent BSkyB directors are essentially about price,” said Bell. Jefferies argues News Corp has the upper hand in negotiations because it is the only potential buyer of the stake, and with “evidence of a consumer slowdown” starting to hit BSkyB’s customer churn rate the cash-generating juggernaut may not be as impervious to any downturn as has been widely forecast. In addition while News Corp is keen to seek a deal recommended by BSkyB’s directors – to then pursue a scheme of arrangement to secure the deal with a shareholder vote – if it had to go the more complex, expensive route of a hostile takeover the company clearly has the upper hand. Under an agreement struck between News Corp and BSkyB after it made its initial approach last June, the two sides have two months to reach a recommended deal with Sky’s independent directors from when Hunt gives final approval. If this is not successful then over the following three-month period any offer by News Corp would need acceptance of 70% of Sky’s shareholders – News Corp already owns 39.1% so the company would need the support of half of the investors controlling the remaining 70%. Jefferies points out that, if necessary, News Corp can push the threat of reaching 75% control at which point it has the power to de-list BSkyB from the stockmarket. “Most hedge funds and other fund managers have an investor remit [to deal] only in publicly listed securities, so if push came to shove News Corporation could force the situation to de-list and they would have to sell,” said one City source. In addition under the terms of last June’s agreement if News Corp fails to strike a deal after five months it will have to pay BSkyB a £38.5m fee but would then be able to seek a deal requiring just 50.1% shareholder approval. “News Corporation’s leverage over BSkyB gets better over time,” said a second City source. A group of shareholders are pushing for News Corp to up its original 700p offer – made when BSkyB was trading at under 600p – to potentially as high as £11. Those calling for a dramatically increased offer include Crispin Odey, founder of Odey Asset Management which has a 2.7% stake in Sky, and Fidelity which would mean News Corp would have to find well over £11bn. However Jefferies believe an agreeable bid price will be about 850p plus final dividend, which the company believes will be about 15.7p, meaning News Corp will effectively have to make an offer somewhere in the region of 866p. Analysts at Numis have argued for 850p while city sources suggest BSkyB’s independent directors are keener on 875p. News Corp proposed a 700p a share offer last June – when BSkyB was trading under 600p – which equates to about £7.8bn. If it ups its offer to 875p it will have to beef up its offer to about £9.3bn – a further £1.5bn. If everything were to go smoothly in the takeover process News Corp could complete the transaction by the middle of October. • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook . News Corporation Media business BSkyB Television industry Rupert Murdoch Jeremy Hunt Mark Sweney guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Downing Street says 26% of schools are shut and 22% partially open, but claims only half of civil service union members also striking Downing Street has confirmed that more than 10,000 schools have either closed or cancelled lessons as a result of the strikes over pensions . But it insisted that only half of members of the Public and Commercial Services union , which represents civil service workers, have joined the walkouts, declaring Britain’s borders “open for business” with air travel unaffected . The prime minister’s official spokesman said that 26% of schools are shut, 22% partially open and 23% unaffected. Downing Street is still awaiting information about the other 29%. It means that more than 2 million pupils are affected by the action. Parents across the country, particularly in the major cities, have been forced to stay at home or make other arrangements for their children. Downing Street acknowledged that the strikes would have a knock-on effect for the economy. Kevin Courtney, deputy general secretary of the National Union of Teachers , said the early indications were that “large numbers” of schools were affected by the action. NUT figures suggest around 80%. “We realise that’s very disruptive for parents, and we do regret that,” he said. “We had hoped to reach a settlement before the industrial action, but the government isn’t serious about talks.” Michael Gove, the education secretary, said on a visit to an open primary school: “I feel disappointed that people have chosen to go out on strike today. I understand that there are really strong feelings about pensions and we absolutely want to ensure that everyone in the public, especially teachers, have decent pensions.” Thousands of people are gathering in Manchester and London to take part in marches with roads in both cities shut down. Police leave in the capital has been cancelled with a large Met operation underway in central London to police the march. There are picket lines outside government buildings in Whitehall as well as well as schools, tax offices, courts and jobcentres across the country. Some 350 colleges and 75 universities are also closed or operating a scaled-back timetable. The government claimed that turnout among the civil service was low but the PCS insisted it was the best supported of the union’s history. “Less than half of PCS members have decided to take part reinforcing what we saw at the ballot which was very limited support for strike action,” the prime minister’s spokesman said. Jobcentres and tax offices are open, albeit with some offering reduced services. Courts are prioritising the most urgent cases, he said. The PCS counterclaimed that 90% of members in the Department of Work and Pensions and 85% in HM Revenue and Customs had walked out. Mark Serwotka, the union’s general secretary , said: “The government made a lot of the fact that after the strike ballot it was clear civil servants didn’t support strike action, but today we can see that they have voted with their feet.” The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said: “These strikes are wrong at a time when negotiations are still going on but parents and the public have been let down by both sides because the government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner. “After today’s disruption, I urge both sides to put aside the rhetoric, get round the negotiating table and stop it happening again.” The government is coming under increasing pressure to justify claims that the current system is “unaffordable”. David Cameron said this week that it was in danger of “going broke” but the report – by the former Labour business secretary Lord Hutton – on which the government’s reforms are based, confirms that as a share of GDP the cost of pensions peeked last year at 1.9% and is now projected to fall to 1.4% by 2059-60. The Cabinet Office minister, Francis Maude, who is leading the pension negotiations, was accused on Radio 4′s Today Programme of “floundering” by Serwotka when asked to justify the statements. Maude would only say that the Hutton report had “very clearly” said that the status quo was “not tenable”. “You cannot continue to have more and more people in retirement being supported by fewer and fewer people in work,” said Maude. The prime minister’s official spokesman dismissed the row. “People are getting caught up in a semantic debate,” he said. “There is this debate that is raging about unaffordable versus untenable. The fact of the matter is this was looked into very thoroughly by Hutton and he concluded that we needed to reform public sector pensions.” Asked if striking unions would be excluded from future talks, he said: “We want to have a constructive dialogue. We will continue to approach these discussions in that way.” Annual figures released by the Department for Education on Thursday show that there are 8.2 million pupils in 24,500 schools in England, including 2,400 private schools. According to the government’s estimation that half of schools are affected, at least 10,000 are closed with at least 2 million pupils affected by closures and hundreds of thousands of more missing cancelled lessons. Maude claimed the turnout was lower than the 2004 and 2007 strikes against Labour’s pension reforms. He issued the government’s assessment of the impact of the strike on the civil service claiming that Just under 80% of civil servants were at work estimating that around 100,000 out of the 500,000 workforce was striking. The PCS union has around 250,000 members who were balloted. He said: “What today has shown is that the vast majority of hardworking public sector employees do not support today’s premature strike and have come into work today; I want to thank them all for coming in, ignoring the pickets and putting the public first. “I am not at all surprised by the very low turnout for today’s action – less than half of PCS’s own members chose to take part. Very few civil servants wanted this strike at all – less than 10% of them voted for it – and they are right. “It is simply wrong for their leader to be pushing for walkouts when serious talks, set up at the request of the TUC itself, are still ongoing. As Brendan Barber [the TUC general secretary] said, the government are approaching this whole process in good faith.” Public sector pensions Public sector cuts Public services policy Public finance Public sector pay Schools Civil service Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …