Minority babies now outnumber white infants in the US, preliminary Census estimates show, a finding that indicates racial and ethnic minorities will become the nation’s majority by the middle of the century. Just under half of all children under 3 are non-Hispanic whites, down from more than 60% in 1990,…
Continue reading …
Moni Varma claims Mittal reneged after promising to pay him for deal to gain access to Niger Delta oil fields Britain’s richest man is being sued for allegedly reneging on a multi-million dollar agreement to pay fees to a former friend for helping to secure an oil deal with a former Nigerian president. Lakshmi Mittal, the steel tycoon who is one of Labour’s most generous donors, has received a high court writ from the businessman Moni Varma. Varma claims to have facilitated a deal in 2006 for Mittal to gain access to two unexplored oil fields in the Niger Delta after arranging a meeting with Olusegun Obasanjo, who was Nigeria’s president. Mittal has dismissed the claim, saying the case will be defended vigorously. The case offers a rare glimpse into the business empire of Mittal, reportedly the world’s sixth-richest man. It has also created ructions within the community of London’s super-rich Indians in which both men once socialised. Varma, 62, from Northwood, Middlesex, whose company Veetee Rice is one of Britain’s biggest rice traders, said he had been let down by Mittal. “I am saddened but I have been left with no choice but to issue court proceedings against Lakshmi to recover sums that are due to me,” he said. Mittal, 61, whose wealth is estimated to be £17.5bn in this year’s Rich List , has offered to pay $5m (£3.1m) but this has been rejected. Since moving to Britain with his family in 1995, the “Steel Maharajah” – as Mittal is called – has become well known for his expensive tastes and his involvement in British public life. He has donated more than £5m to Labour and has imported marble from the quarry that was used for the Taj Mahal to decorate his £60m home. The ArcelorMittal Orbit – 1,500 tonnes of steel twisted into a sculpture by the artist Anish Kapoor – will be Britain’s largest piece of public art and will dominate the skyline at the Olympic Park in Stratford, east London. But his success in business, and his ability to move seamlessly into unexplored industries, has remained a mystery. The writ details how Varma and Mittal have known each other socially since 1997 and regularly discussed business opportunities at glittering social events in London. Varma, who was born in India but educated in Malawi, has longstanding connections with Nigeria and had known Obasanjo since 2001 because he had exported rice to the African state, the documents claim. In July 2005 Mittal Investments Sarl, a company owned by the defendant, launched a joint adventure with OVL, a subsidiary of ONGC India, India’s leading oil and gas exploration company. A month later Mittal and Varma met for dinner at Amaya, an Indian restaurant in Knightsbridge, and discussed possible deals in Nigeria, the writ claims. In September 2005, Varma claims, they held a conversation that is at the heart of the case. They discussed how much Varma would be paid if the deal came through, the writ claims. Varma claims Mittal said he could expect between 5% and 15% of the defendant’s investment. According to the writ Mittal responded “I will cover you” or “you will be covered … The reward could be even bigger than 15%, depending on the size of the deal.” Varma claims that over the following six months he was cut out of the deal and could only watch as it was completed. Mittal’s joint venture with the Indian government was successful in its bids for two licences for 10 years in downstream projects in Nigeria. The anticipated combined yield of the “blocks”, or areas of oil, was 650,000 barrels a day and the value of the downstream projects is $6bn. Varma claims he continued to try to contact Mittal about the deal and when he could expect payback. In March he managed to speak to Mittal, who offered $5m, the writ claims, but the offer was rejected. According to the writ, this offer was then denied in a subsequent letter from Mittal’s solicitors Schillings, but Mittal has since said that he did discuss a possible payment of $5m, depending on the success of the projects. Mittal’s lawyers are expected to argue that Varma was a social acquaintance of their client, and that Varma offered to arrange a meeting with Obasanjo. They also point out that neither block has yet produced any oil and that the costs have so far been $325m. The lawyers have also dismissed as fanciful Varma’s claims of introducing Mittal to Nigeria. A spokesman for Mittal’s legal team said: “We are aware of the case, in relation to which we believe there are no grounds and which we intend to defend vigorously.” Obasanjo, who stepped down as president in 2007, has been accused in Nigeria of overseeing a series of poorly negotiated oil deals. A report by Chatham House two years ago criticised oil deals brokered by his government with Asian countries, claiming that they were short-termist and exploitative. Mittal has previously been at the centre of political controversy. In May 2001 he gave £125,000 to the Labour party, shortly after which Tony Blair backed his bid for a Romanian firm, sparking the 2002 Steelgate row. Lakshmi Mittal Oil Nigeria Manufacturing sector Arcelor Mittal Africa Rajeev Syal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Egypt’s left threatens ‘million-strong’ protest to stop Islamists winning power
June 23, 2011 No Comment
Liberals say post-Mubarak transition proposal favours Muslim Brotherhood – but religious groups reject ‘constitution-first’ plan Egyptian activists have threatened to bring mass pro-democracy protests back to Cairo, with a “million-strong” occupation of Tahrir Square planned for 8 July unless the ruling army generals abandon their current “roadmap” to democracy. In an increasingly rancorous debate, which has developed into a proxy war between the nation’s fledgling Islamist and secular political forces, 40 different liberal and leftist movements have joined forces to demand that plans to hold elections in September are dropped. Campaigners fear the existing post-Mubarak transition programme – which would see September’s ballot held under an amended version of Egypt’s existing constitution and then allow members of parliament to oversee the writing of a new constitution – may cede permanent power to the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious groups, who are expected to dominate the poll. Islamists have reacted furiously to the “constitution-first” campaign, arguing that it contradicts the results of a nationwide referendum held in March, in which 77% of the country backed a set of constitutional amendments and endorsed the idea that parliamentary elections should precede any new constitution. “Egyptians will not remain silent on attempts by an irrelevant elite to impose a liberal secular constitution on the people,” said the new Salafist party Al-Nour in a statement. Egypt’s interim prime minister, Essam Sharaf, has stoked controversy by suggesting elections could be delayed to allow the nation’s “political landscape” to take shape – a key demand of many secular revolutionary groups who believe they have not had the time to develop their organisational capacity and are therefore likely to lose out in September to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are already a well-established presence in most towns and cities across the country. But Sharaf – who took office 100 days ago this week and famously marked his appointment by entering Tahrir Square and announcing to protesters “I draw my legitimacy from you” – has faced a storm of criticism for his comments. Any postponement of elections would contradict the official line held by Egypt’s Supreme Council of Armed Forces, the country’s de facto rulers until a civilian government is ready to take over. The prime minister later said his comments had been “misunderstood” and that the timetable for elections remained the same. Disagreements over the timing and process of writing a constitution have become the main point of division within Egypt’s febrile political landscape, which after decades of one-party rule is now being rapidly populated by a wide range of new forces. “This is not just a debate about short-term political gain,” said Egyptian journalist Ashraf Khalil, who has followed the issue closely. “Whoever wins the parliamentary elections is going to play a major role in writing the new constitution and they are therefore going to play a major role in shaping the political foundations of the new Egypt.” Concerns are mounting that a raft of new parties, including many claiming to represent the “revolutionary youth” that helped to overthrow Mubarak earlier this year, have not even completed the formal party registration process yet and will be in no position to mount a successful appeal for votes by September. “The Brotherhood is clearly ready for elections now – it’s been ready for 10 years – whereas the newer secular parties who could not participate in the political process under Mubarak are not,” added Khalil. “I’m not expecting an outright Brotherhood victory or the creation of some kind of Iranian theocratic state, but clearly if the new parliament does not have adequate representation from the movements that played such a key part in sparking the revolution then that’s a cause for concern.” The Brotherhood’s new political vehicle, the Freedom and Justice party, has vowed not to contest more than 50% of parliamentary seats and will not run a candidate for president in an effort to assuage concerns at home and abroad over a potential Islamist takeover of the state. That has not been enough to reassure some critics, including a “national consensus conference” led by the deputy prime minister, which has called for the inclusion of an article in the new constitution that would task the military with “protecting” Egypt’s civil institutions – a thinly-veiled warning against any potential attempt by an Islamist-controlled parliament to push for a religious state. In an effort to secure a compromise, presidential hopeful Mohamed ElBaradei has proposed that elections precede the new constitution as originally planned, but that a new bill of rights should be drawn up beforehand that would supersede the constitution. This bill of rights would acknowledge the importance of Islamic sharia law in guiding legislation but also affirm Egypt’s status as a civil state. ElBaradei’s plan has won some support, though questions remain about how such a legal document would be formulated. “We have to search for a compromise,” said political analyst Diaa Rashwan. “We have already had a bitterly fought row over the constitutional amendments and the last thing we need now is to have
Continue reading …“Michele Bachmann has found the flaw in the American Death Star,” Matt Taibbi writes in a long and (typically) profane profile of the Tea Party queen for Rolling Stone . “She is a television camera’s dream, a threat to do or say something insane at any time, the ultimate reality-show protagonist….
Continue reading …He may not have unfurled a banner or donned a flight suit, “but make no mistake: President Obama gave his own version of a ‘mission accomplished’ speech last night,” writes Dana Milbank of the Washington Post . Last night the president declared—“perhaps prematurely”—that the Afghanistan surge had been successful,…
Continue reading …Looking to lose weight? Skip the potatoes and concentrate on nuts and yogurt. That’s the latest diet advice from a 20-year survey of 120,000 men and women on how the foods we eat affect our weight over the long term. “All foods are not equal, and just eating in…
Continue reading …Yulia Tymoshenko says corruption trial aim is to destroy Ukraine opposition
June 23, 2011 No Comment
Orange revolution leader faces ban from political office if found guilty in case she claims President Yanukovich orchestrated Her distinctive circular braid has been replaced by a loose furl of blond hair, but the unwavering gaze and the stinging rhetoric are those of old. Seven years since she led Ukraine’s orange revolution, Yulia Tymoshenko is back at centre stage as she prepares to stand as the accused in what she calls a show trial orchestrated by President Viktor Yanukovich, her sworn political foe. “Everything that is happening with me now is ordered and controlled by Yanukovich,” she says, as her chauffeur-driven black Mercedes noses through a traffic jam close to Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the square that made her an international celebrity. “He believes that if he can destroy the opposition in one fell swoop then it will not rise up again. And that’s why these criminal cases are being opened against me, one after the other … They are the instrument in Yanukovich’s fight against his political opponents, against me – not by democratic, honest and competitive means, but just like Stalin did in 1937.” Tymoshenko’s career has soared and dipped since those heady days in 2004 when she and her ally, Viktor Yushchenko, brought hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians on to the Maidan. Back then, she whipped up the crowds against Yanukovich, a former head of the Donetsk coal mining region, who was accused of fixing the country’s presidential election in his favour with massive vote-rigging. It seemed like a victory of democracy over an old Soviet-style regime when the poll was cancelled and Yushchenko won a rerun in early 2005. But he and Tymoshenko, who became his premier, soon fell to bickering and the orange dream began to evaporate. Last year, Yanukovich made a dramatic comeback – although his hefty support in the Russian-speaking east of the country had never actually dimmed – beating Tymoshenko in presidential elections by just 3.5 percentage points. Soon afterwards, she was ousted as prime minister while Yushchenko faded into political obscurity. Then, in December, Tymoshenko, 50, was indicted for abuse of power for allegedly using $425m (£266m) of “Kyoto money” received by Ukraine for selling carbon emission quotas while she was prime minister to pay for pensions. Another corruption charge of buying overpriced vehicles for use as rural ambulances soon followed. Finally, last month, she was charged with signing a deal with Russia in 2009 for supplies of natural gas that allegedly lost Ukraine $440m – the case that comes to court . The accusations have led to a constant merry-go-round of visits by the former businesswoman to the general prosecutor’s office, accompanied by television crews and her supporters. For now, she is free, but cannot leave Kiev without prosecutors’ consent under strict bail limits. Several of her former government colleagues are already behind bars on charges of fraud, including the former interior minister, Yury Lutsenko. Tymoshenko rejects the accusations against her as fabricated and claims it is the current government that is corrupt. “Yanukovich is running Ukraine as his own personal company,” she says. “His son, a simple dentist, has found his way in to the list of the richest people in the country. How many teeth do you need to pull to do that?” Both men deny any wrongdoing. Tymoshenko adds: “Yanukovich’s ratings are falling fast. He knows that if there is a powerful opposition and honest elections then he will lose power in 2012. He wants to neutralise this threat and make sure that I have no access to the elections.” Her abuse of power charges carry punishments of up to 10 years in jail, but even a suspended sentence could prevent Tymoshenko from taking part in next year’s parliamentary poll, and possibly the next presidential election in 2015. Yanukovich and his allies say they are not involved in the cases. “I wish Yulia Tymoshenko to prove her innocence in court and continue to live, work and do her favourite things,” he said last week. A senior source in the presidential administration said: “The current Ukrainian leadership is trying to be unbiased with regard to law enforcement. No one talks about the 360 [corruption] prosecutions of current members of the government.” But western diplomats say Tymoshenko’s trial looks like a politically motivated attack designed to see off an opponent, and part of a wider backsliding on democracy since Yanukovich came to the presidency last year. That poses a thorny problem as Ukraine wrangles over its future. While often characterised as pro-Moscow , Yanukovich has taken a pragmatic course in foreign policy. He signed off last year on a deal to let Russia keep its Black Sea fleet in Crimea and has ruled out joining Nato, yet his government has also indicated it will sign a free trade agreement with the EU by the end of this year – a snub to the Kremlin’s offer of a customs union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. EU diplomats insist bringing Ukraine “inside the tent” of economic integration will give greater scope to lean on Yanukovich to improve his human rights record. But last week a group of Ukrainian intellectuals called on the EU to stall talks on closer ties until Yanukovich halts political trials and “democratic regression”. Tymoshenko disagrees. “Ukraine needs to be saved,” she said. “If the EU pushes Ukraine away now and leaves it one-on-one with this regime, our country will be thrown back several decades.” Yulia Tymoshenko Ukraine Europe Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Yulia Tymoshenko says corruption trial aim is to destroy Ukraine opposition
June 23, 2011 No CommentOrange revolution leader faces ban from political office if found guilty in case she claims President Yanukovich orchestrated Her distinctive circular braid has been replaced by a loose furl of blond hair, but the unwavering gaze and the stinging rhetoric are those of old. Seven years since she led Ukraine’s orange revolution, Yulia Tymoshenko is back at centre stage as she prepares to stand as the accused in what she calls a show trial orchestrated by President Viktor Yanukovich, her sworn political foe. “Everything that is happening with me now is ordered and controlled by Yanukovich,” she says, as her chauffeur-driven black Mercedes noses through a traffic jam close to Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the square that made her an international celebrity. “He believes that if he can destroy the opposition in one fell swoop then it will not rise up again. And that’s why these criminal cases are being opened against me, one after the other … They are the instrument in Yanukovich’s fight against his political opponents, against me – not by democratic, honest and competitive means, but just like Stalin did in 1937.” Tymoshenko’s career has soared and dipped since those heady days in 2004 when she and her ally, Viktor Yushchenko, brought hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians on to the Maidan. Back then, she whipped up the crowds against Yanukovich, a former head of the Donetsk coal mining region, who was accused of fixing the country’s presidential election in his favour with massive vote-rigging. It seemed like a victory of democracy over an old Soviet-style regime when the poll was cancelled and Yushchenko won a rerun in early 2005. But he and Tymoshenko, who became his premier, soon fell to bickering and the orange dream began to evaporate. Last year, Yanukovich made a dramatic comeback – although his hefty support in the Russian-speaking east of the country had never actually dimmed – beating Tymoshenko in presidential elections by just 3.5 percentage points. Soon afterwards, she was ousted as prime minister while Yushchenko faded into political obscurity. Then, in December, Tymoshenko, 50, was indicted for abuse of power for allegedly using $425m (£266m) of “Kyoto money” received by Ukraine for selling carbon emission quotas while she was prime minister to pay for pensions. Another corruption charge of buying overpriced vehicles for use as rural ambulances soon followed. Finally, last month, she was charged with signing a deal with Russia in 2009 for supplies of natural gas that allegedly lost Ukraine $440m – the case that comes to court . The accusations have led to a constant merry-go-round of visits by the former businesswoman to the general prosecutor’s office, accompanied by television crews and her supporters. For now, she is free, but cannot leave Kiev without prosecutors’ consent under strict bail limits. Several of her former government colleagues are already behind bars on charges of fraud, including the former interior minister, Yury Lutsenko. Tymoshenko rejects the accusations against her as fabricated and claims it is the current government that is corrupt. “Yanukovich is running Ukraine as his own personal company,” she says. “His son, a simple dentist, has found his way in to the list of the richest people in the country. How many teeth do you need to pull to do that?” Both men deny any wrongdoing. Tymoshenko adds: “Yanukovich’s ratings are falling fast. He knows that if there is a powerful opposition and honest elections then he will lose power in 2012. He wants to neutralise this threat and make sure that I have no access to the elections.” Her abuse of power charges carry punishments of up to 10 years in jail, but even a suspended sentence could prevent Tymoshenko from taking part in next year’s parliamentary poll, and possibly the next presidential election in 2015. Yanukovich and his allies say they are not involved in the cases. “I wish Yulia Tymoshenko to prove her innocence in court and continue to live, work and do her favourite things,” he said last week. A senior source in the presidential administration said: “The current Ukrainian leadership is trying to be unbiased with regard to law enforcement. No one talks about the 360 [corruption] prosecutions of current members of the government.” But western diplomats say Tymoshenko’s trial looks like a politically motivated attack designed to see off an opponent, and part of a wider backsliding on democracy since Yanukovich came to the presidency last year. That poses a thorny problem as Ukraine wrangles over its future. While often characterised as pro-Moscow , Yanukovich has taken a pragmatic course in foreign policy. He signed off last year on a deal to let Russia keep its Black Sea fleet in Crimea and has ruled out joining Nato, yet his government has also indicated it will sign a free trade agreement with the EU by the end of this year – a snub to the Kremlin’s offer of a customs union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. EU diplomats insist bringing Ukraine “inside the tent” of economic integration will give greater scope to lean on Yanukovich to improve his human rights record. But last week a group of Ukrainian intellectuals called on the EU to stall talks on closer ties until Yanukovich halts political trials and “democratic regression”. Tymoshenko disagrees. “Ukraine needs to be saved,” she said. “If the EU pushes Ukraine away now and leaves it one-on-one with this regime, our country will be thrown back several decades.” Yulia Tymoshenko Ukraine Europe Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Yulia Tymoshenko says corruption trial aim is to destroy Ukraine opposition
June 23, 2011 No Comment
Orange revolution leader faces ban from political office if found guilty in case she claims President Yanukovich orchestrated Her distinctive circular braid has been replaced by a loose furl of blond hair, but the unwavering gaze and the stinging rhetoric are those of old. Seven years since she led Ukraine’s orange revolution, Yulia Tymoshenko is back at centre stage as she prepares to stand as the accused in what she calls a show trial orchestrated by President Viktor Yanukovich, her sworn political foe. “Everything that is happening with me now is ordered and controlled by Yanukovich,” she says, as her chauffeur-driven black Mercedes noses through a traffic jam close to Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the square that made her an international celebrity. “He believes that if he can destroy the opposition in one fell swoop then it will not rise up again. And that’s why these criminal cases are being opened against me, one after the other … They are the instrument in Yanukovich’s fight against his political opponents, against me – not by democratic, honest and competitive means, but just like Stalin did in 1937.” Tymoshenko’s career has soared and dipped since those heady days in 2004 when she and her ally, Viktor Yushchenko, brought hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians on to the Maidan. Back then, she whipped up the crowds against Yanukovich, a former head of the Donetsk coal mining region, who was accused of fixing the country’s presidential election in his favour with massive vote-rigging. It seemed like a victory of democracy over an old Soviet-style regime when the poll was cancelled and Yushchenko won a rerun in early 2005. But he and Tymoshenko, who became his premier, soon fell to bickering and the orange dream began to evaporate. Last year, Yanukovich made a dramatic comeback – although his hefty support in the Russian-speaking east of the country had never actually dimmed – beating Tymoshenko in presidential elections by just 3.5 percentage points. Soon afterwards, she was ousted as prime minister while Yushchenko faded into political obscurity. Then, in December, Tymoshenko, 50, was indicted for abuse of power for allegedly using $425m (£266m) of “Kyoto money” received by Ukraine for selling carbon emission quotas while she was prime minister to pay for pensions. Another corruption charge of buying overpriced vehicles for use as rural ambulances soon followed. Finally, last month, she was charged with signing a deal with Russia in 2009 for supplies of natural gas that allegedly lost Ukraine $440m – the case that comes to court . The accusations have led to a constant merry-go-round of visits by the former businesswoman to the general prosecutor’s office, accompanied by television crews and her supporters. For now, she is free, but cannot leave Kiev without prosecutors’ consent under strict bail limits. Several of her former government colleagues are already behind bars on charges of fraud, including the former interior minister, Yury Lutsenko. Tymoshenko rejects the accusations against her as fabricated and claims it is the current government that is corrupt. “Yanukovich is running Ukraine as his own personal company,” she says. “His son, a simple dentist, has found his way in to the list of the richest people in the country. How many teeth do you need to pull to do that?” Both men deny any wrongdoing. Tymoshenko adds: “Yanukovich’s ratings are falling fast. He knows that if there is a powerful opposition and honest elections then he will lose power in 2012. He wants to neutralise this threat and make sure that I have no access to the elections.” Her abuse of power charges carry punishments of up to 10 years in jail, but even a suspended sentence could prevent Tymoshenko from taking part in next year’s parliamentary poll, and possibly the next presidential election in 2015. Yanukovich and his allies say they are not involved in the cases. “I wish Yulia Tymoshenko to prove her innocence in court and continue to live, work and do her favourite things,” he said last week. A senior source in the presidential administration said: “The current Ukrainian leadership is trying to be unbiased with regard to law enforcement. No one talks about the 360 [corruption] prosecutions of current members of the government.” But western diplomats say Tymoshenko’s trial looks like a politically motivated attack designed to see off an opponent, and part of a wider backsliding on democracy since Yanukovich came to the presidency last year. That poses a thorny problem as Ukraine wrangles over its future. While often characterised as pro-Moscow , Yanukovich has taken a pragmatic course in foreign policy. He signed off last year on a deal to let Russia keep its Black Sea fleet in Crimea and has ruled out joining Nato, yet his government has also indicated it will sign a free trade agreement with the EU by the end of this year – a snub to the Kremlin’s offer of a customs union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. EU diplomats insist bringing Ukraine “inside the tent” of economic integration will give greater scope to lean on Yanukovich to improve his human rights record. But last week a group of Ukrainian intellectuals called on the EU to stall talks on closer ties until Yanukovich halts political trials and “democratic regression”. Tymoshenko disagrees. “Ukraine needs to be saved,” she said. “If the EU pushes Ukraine away now and leaves it one-on-one with this regime, our country will be thrown back several decades.” Yulia Tymoshenko Ukraine Europe Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Agents’ arrival indicates US might make a formal request to extradite teenager accused of cyber-crime FBI agents investigating the activities of the alleged hacker Ryan Cleary have flown into Britain. Cleary, 19, who appeared before magistrates on Thursday, was arrested on Monday as part of an investigation into cyber-attacks in Britain and the US. Hours after his arrest at Cleary’s family home in Wickford, Essex, the FBI agents arrived in the UK, it has emerged, which will add to speculation that Washington is considering a request for his extradition. Cleary has been charged with five offences of hacking that are alleged to have targeted three British based websites. Police and FBI investigations continue. Cleary appeared at City of London magistrates court charged with a cyber-attack on Monday on Britain’s Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca), attacks on the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry in November 2010, and on the British Phonographic Industry in October 2010. His arrest was linked to a series of cyber-attacks by a group called LulzSec, which investigators believe had targeted websites including ones belonging to the American CIA, the US Senate and the electronics company Sony. Because Cleary has been charged in the UK, that case would take precedence over any extradition request from the US. The FBI, which gives cyber-crime high priority, is expected to be given access to evidence collected by British police from Cleary’s computer equipment recovered from his family home. The FBI is expected to attempt to conduct its own questioning of the teenager. In court, district judge Quentin Purdy told Cleary: “There may be additional charges resulting from the police investigation.” Ben Cooper, defending Cleary, described him as a “vulnerable young man”. The teenager is being detained at Charing Cross police station in central London for further questioning. LulzSec Hacking Crime FBI United States Vikram Dodd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …