Al Gore makes a blunt public attack on the Obama administration for its failure to enforce stricter pollution standards If Barack Obama didn’t have enough on his plate – with the sagging economy, dismal employment figures and falling approval ratings – on Wednesday he also endured an unusual and highly public rebuke from Al Gore over environmental policy. The former US vice president turned environmental campaigner published a blog on his official website , entitled “Confronting disappointment,” that castigated Obama personally for pulling the Environmental Protection Agency off the trail of enforcing tougher emissions standards . Gore’s most stinging rebuke in the brief post came when he said: “President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution,” saying the net result will be lung disease and asthma: On Friday afternoon, as brave and committed activists continued their non-violent civil disobedience outside the White House in protest of the tar sands pipeline that would lead to a massive increase in global warming pollution, President Obama ordered the EPA to abandon its pursuit of new curbs on emissions that worsens disease-causing smog in US cities. Earlier this year, the EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson, wrote that the levels of pollution now permitted – put in place by the Bush-Cheney administration – are “not legally defensible.” Those very same rules have now been embraced by the Obama White House. Instead of relying on science, President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution – even though economists have shown that the US economy would benefit from the job creating investments associated with implementing the new technology. The result of the White House’s action will be increased medical bills for seniors with lung disease, more children developing asthma, and the continued degradation of our air quality. Gore is not alone. The White House’s decision last Friday created considerable anger among enviromentalists and Democratic activists . Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org , had this to say about the decision: Many MoveOn members are wondering today how they can ever work for President Obama’s reelection, or make the case for him to their neighbors, when he does something like this, after extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and giving in to tea party demands on the debt deal. This is a decision we’d expect from George W Bush. Al Gore Barack Obama Obama administration US politics US domestic policy United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
MPs will be asked to vote again following the results of a consultation into abortion counselling MPs will have a fresh vote on abortion before the next general election when the government presents the findings of a consultation into the system of counselling for women with unwanted pregnancies. An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons on Wednesday, by 368 votes to 118, after a split between the original supporters of the amendment. But Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP who tabled the amendment, declared she had “won the war” after the health minister Anne Milton announced that the “spirit” of her plans would be embodied in a consultation. MPs will be asked to vote on any changes to the system of counselling when the results of the consultation are presented to parliament. The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling. MPs voted by a majority of 250 to reject the amendment after Dorries lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field. He called on Dorries not to force a vote after Milton said the government intended to bring forward new proposals on counselling. Dorries won the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary. George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband voted against the amendment. Downing Street said Cameron would have voted against but had to attend a meeting in No 10 with Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. The amendment was defeated so heavily because Milton impressed some pro-life MPs by outlining details of the consultation on counselling. The health minister said: “The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve.” Dorries hailed the announcement from Milton as a sign of victory. She told the BBC: “We lost the battle but we have won the war.” A senior source at the Department of Health said that any changes would have to be approved by MPs in a free vote. The source said the changes would not change the abortion act. But Mark Pritchard, secretary of the Tory 1922 committee who supported the Dorries amendment, said that a wider vote on abortion should be held. “This was a good result considering the amount of misinformation and disinformation put out by opponents of the amendment and by the whips’ narks. Many colleagues have said to me that a wider debate on abortion and term limits needs to take place in this parliament.” Milton’s announcement about the consultation came towards the end of a scratchy debate in which Dorries said Cameron had initially encouraged her. Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent. Dorries said: “I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister’s insistence that I inserted the word ‘independent’. I attended a meeting at the Department of Health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality.” Dorries claimed that Cameron changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: “Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP.” A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation: “That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn’t need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment.” The defeat was welcomed by bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: “Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries’s amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy.” Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. “I do not want to return to the days of back-street abortionists,” she said. “I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay.” The MP said it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. “It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?” Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: “This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question.” NHS reforms offer ‘opportunities’ The reforms of the NHS present “huge opportunities” for the private sector, a health minister said yesterday. In a speech to the Independent Healthcare Forum, Lord Howe said it should not matter “one jot” who provides care to NHS patients as long as it was free at the point of delivery. Private companies, he said, would do well under the plans as long as they can offer patients high quality services that compete favourably with current NHS care. He said it would be illegal for any commissioner or the government to favour any one sector – NHS or private – over the other. Lord Howe said a level playing field was being created and competition was based on quality of outcomes, not price. It will be “the best providers, private or NHS, that will prosper, and it will be patients that benefit most” under the plans, he said. Christina McAnea, head of health at Unison, said: “It is clear that the government does want to break up the NHS and get more private sector involvement. Patients do care deeply whom they are seen by. They do not like the thought of private providers making profits from care.” PA Abortion Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …MPs will be asked to vote again following the results of a consultation into abortion counselling MPs will have a fresh vote on abortion before the next general election when the government presents the findings of a consultation into the system of counselling for women with unwanted pregnancies. An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons on Wednesday, by 368 votes to 118, after a split between the original supporters of the amendment. But Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP who tabled the amendment, declared she had “won the war” after the health minister Anne Milton announced that the “spirit” of her plans would be embodied in a consultation. MPs will be asked to vote on any changes to the system of counselling when the results of the consultation are presented to parliament. The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling. MPs voted by a majority of 250 to reject the amendment after Dorries lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field. He called on Dorries not to force a vote after Milton said the government intended to bring forward new proposals on counselling. Dorries won the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary. George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband voted against the amendment. Downing Street said Cameron would have voted against but had to attend a meeting in No 10 with Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. The amendment was defeated so heavily because Milton impressed some pro-life MPs by outlining details of the consultation on counselling. The health minister said: “The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve.” Dorries hailed the announcement from Milton as a sign of victory. She told the BBC: “We lost the battle but we have won the war.” A senior source at the Department of Health said that any changes would have to be approved by MPs in a free vote. The source said the changes would not change the abortion act. But Mark Pritchard, secretary of the Tory 1922 committee who supported the Dorries amendment, said that a wider vote on abortion should be held. “This was a good result considering the amount of misinformation and disinformation put out by opponents of the amendment and by the whips’ narks. Many colleagues have said to me that a wider debate on abortion and term limits needs to take place in this parliament.” Milton’s announcement about the consultation came towards the end of a scratchy debate in which Dorries said Cameron had initially encouraged her. Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent. Dorries said: “I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister’s insistence that I inserted the word ‘independent’. I attended a meeting at the Department of Health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality.” Dorries claimed that Cameron changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: “Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP.” A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation: “That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn’t need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment.” The defeat was welcomed by bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: “Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries’s amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy.” Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. “I do not want to return to the days of back-street abortionists,” she said. “I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay.” The MP said it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. “It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?” Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: “This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question.” NHS reforms offer ‘opportunities’ The reforms of the NHS present “huge opportunities” for the private sector, a health minister said yesterday. In a speech to the Independent Healthcare Forum, Lord Howe said it should not matter “one jot” who provides care to NHS patients as long as it was free at the point of delivery. Private companies, he said, would do well under the plans as long as they can offer patients high quality services that compete favourably with current NHS care. He said it would be illegal for any commissioner or the government to favour any one sector – NHS or private – over the other. Lord Howe said a level playing field was being created and competition was based on quality of outcomes, not price. It will be “the best providers, private or NHS, that will prosper, and it will be patients that benefit most” under the plans, he said. Christina McAnea, head of health at Unison, said: “It is clear that the government does want to break up the NHS and get more private sector involvement. Patients do care deeply whom they are seen by. They do not like the thought of private providers making profits from care.” PA Abortion Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
MPs will be asked to vote again following the results of a consultation into abortion counselling MPs will have a fresh vote on abortion before the next general election when the government presents the findings of a consultation into the system of counselling for women with unwanted pregnancies. An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons on Wednesday, by 368 votes to 118, after a split between the original supporters of the amendment. But Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP who tabled the amendment, declared she had “won the war” after the health minister Anne Milton announced that the “spirit” of her plans would be embodied in a consultation. MPs will be asked to vote on any changes to the system of counselling when the results of the consultation are presented to parliament. The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling. MPs voted by a majority of 250 to reject the amendment after Dorries lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field. He called on Dorries not to force a vote after Milton said the government intended to bring forward new proposals on counselling. Dorries won the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary. George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband voted against the amendment. Downing Street said Cameron would have voted against but had to attend a meeting in No 10 with Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. The amendment was defeated so heavily because Milton impressed some pro-life MPs by outlining details of the consultation on counselling. The health minister said: “The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve.” Dorries hailed the announcement from Milton as a sign of victory. She told the BBC: “We lost the battle but we have won the war.” A senior source at the Department of Health said that any changes would have to be approved by MPs in a free vote. The source said the changes would not change the abortion act. But Mark Pritchard, secretary of the Tory 1922 committee who supported the Dorries amendment, said that a wider vote on abortion should be held. “This was a good result considering the amount of misinformation and disinformation put out by opponents of the amendment and by the whips’ narks. Many colleagues have said to me that a wider debate on abortion and term limits needs to take place in this parliament.” Milton’s announcement about the consultation came towards the end of a scratchy debate in which Dorries said Cameron had initially encouraged her. Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent. Dorries said: “I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister’s insistence that I inserted the word ‘independent’. I attended a meeting at the Department of Health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality.” Dorries claimed that Cameron changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: “Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP.” A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation: “That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn’t need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment.” The defeat was welcomed by bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: “Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries’s amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy.” Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. “I do not want to return to the days of back-street abortionists,” she said. “I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay.” The MP said it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. “It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?” Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: “This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question.” NHS reforms offer ‘opportunities’ The reforms of the NHS present “huge opportunities” for the private sector, a health minister said yesterday. In a speech to the Independent Healthcare Forum, Lord Howe said it should not matter “one jot” who provides care to NHS patients as long as it was free at the point of delivery. Private companies, he said, would do well under the plans as long as they can offer patients high quality services that compete favourably with current NHS care. He said it would be illegal for any commissioner or the government to favour any one sector – NHS or private – over the other. Lord Howe said a level playing field was being created and competition was based on quality of outcomes, not price. It will be “the best providers, private or NHS, that will prosper, and it will be patients that benefit most” under the plans, he said. Christina McAnea, head of health at Unison, said: “It is clear that the government does want to break up the NHS and get more private sector involvement. Patients do care deeply whom they are seen by. They do not like the thought of private providers making profits from care.” PA Abortion Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …More good news for Amanda Knox: The judge in her Italian murder trial has rejected the prosecution’s request for new DNA testing, testimony from a new witness, and the introduction of newly discovered records of the original DNA testing. Knox’s defense had opposed all of the motions, CNN reports. After…
Continue reading …The case against John Edwards is political, not criminal, and should be dismissed, lawyers for the onetime presidential candidate said yesterday in a hefty court filing. “While much can be said in questioning how Mr. Edwards conducted himself throughout this saga, the allegations… that he violated campaign finance laws should…
Continue reading …The Danish family held hostage by Somali pirates since February has been released and is safe. Jan Quist Johansen, his wife, their three children between the ages of 12 and 16, and two adult crew members are in “relatively good condition,” according to Denmark’s foreign ministry and the BBC , and…
Continue reading …$30m of gems that were Elizabeth Taylor’s lasting love go up for auction
September 7, 2011 No Comment
300 ‘exquisite’ items include treasures given by her twice-husband Richard Burton There was jewellery for the eight wedding days, the numerous film premieres, the table tennis victories and of course Tuesdays. Who among us does not get an ‘it’s Tuesday and I love you’ gift? The woman who certainly did was Elizabeth Taylor and it helped her build up one of the most remarkable and dazzling private collections of jewellery ever created. Following her death in March aged 79, Christie’s announced on Wednesday it is to sell nearly 300 of the star’s jewels over two sessions in New York. There will be diamonds, pearls, emeralds, rubies and sapphires; rings, earrings, necklaces, brooches, tiaras and more in a sale expected to make over $30m (£19m). The chairman and president of Christie’s America, Marc Porter, said the sale promised “to captivate the auction world”. He added: “This is without a doubt the greatest private collection of jewellery assembled in one place.” Taylor’s obsession with jewellery is well-chronicled. Her twice-husband Richard Burton said: “I introduced Liz to beer, and she introduced me to Bulgari.” If your jaw would ever drop at a piece of jewellery then it would drop at some of the gifts from Burton, not least “the Elizabeth Taylor Diamond”, a 33.19 carat monster of a diamond ring that she cheerfully wore most days after being given it in 1968. Taylor once said: “My ring gives me the strangest feeling for beauty. With its sparks of red and white and blue and purple, and on and on, really, it sort of hums with its own beatific life.” Its estimate may be a tad beyond most means – $2.5m to $3.5m. Burton was also responsible for “It’s a beautiful day, I love you” gifts and an “It’s Tuesday, I love you” present of a Bulgari emerald suite – necklace pendant, ring, bracelet, earrings – collected over the course of many trips to the Bulgari boutique on Rome’s Via Condotti while they were filming Cleopatra. He is alleged to have claimed “the only word Elizabeth knows in Italian is Bulgari”. Then there is his 1968 Christmas present to her which she almost missed because Burton had buried it so deep in her Christmas stocking. The perfect red ruby ring is estimated at $1m to $1.5m. Two years later Burton and Taylor were relaxing at their luxury chalet in Gstaad playing ping pong. A challenge was set: if Taylor could take 10 points off him he would get her a diamond, and of course she did. The result was three very small diamond rings known as the ping pong diamonds, which may be more in some people’s price range at $5,000 to $7,000. Another Burton gift is a necklace – La Pérégrina – which contains one of the most important pearls there is, one discovered in the early 1500s in the Gulf of Panama which Philip II of Spain gave as a wedding gift to his wife Mary Tudor. Of course Taylor went through her husbands, and there are gifts in the sale from others, including husband number three Mike Todd, who died in a plane crash a year after their marriage in 1957. She wore the diamond tiara he gave her – “you are my queen” – to the Oscars in 1957, where Todd won best picture for Around the World in 80 Days. Another present was the Cartier Ruby suite which he surprised her with as she was swimming laps in the pool of her luxury Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat villa. She was without a mirror and looked at her reflection in the pool and wrote afterwards: “I just shrieked with joy, put my arms around Mike’s neck, and pulled him into the pool after me.” It will be a sale the like of which has not been seen since Sotheby’s sold Wallis Simpson’s vast collection of jewellery by the shores of Lake Geneva in 1987. Taylor was, naturally, at the sale, outbidding everyone to buy the “Prince of Wales” brooch that she admired whenever she saw the duchess. Other pieces in the sale relate to specific films such as her diamond, gold, emerald and sapphire Night of the Iguana brooch which always brought to mind lovely days spent at her Mexican residencia in Gringo Gulch, Puerto Vallarta – joined, as it was, by a bridge to Burton’s. Taylor always intended that her collection would go to auction. In her 2002 memoir, My Love Affair With Jewellery, Taylor wrote: “I never, never thought of my jewellery as trophies. I’m here to take care of them and to love them. When I die and they go off to auction I hope whoever buys them gives them a really good home.” François Curiel, Christie’s international jewellery director, recalled first meeting Taylor in 1998: “It was clear that she possessed an expert’s eye for craftmanship, rarity, quality and history. She collected the best pieces from the best periods, and as a result her collection boasts exquisite examples from the most celebrated of jewellery designers.” The jewellery will be sold over two sessions on 14 December. It will be on display at Christie’s London on 24-26 September. Elizabeth Taylor Mark Brown guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …$30m of gems that were Elizabeth Taylor’s lasting love go up for auction
September 7, 2011 No Comment300 ‘exquisite’ items include treasures given by her twice-husband Richard Burton There was jewellery for the eight wedding days, the numerous film premieres, the table tennis victories and of course Tuesdays. Who among us does not get an ‘it’s Tuesday and I love you’ gift? The woman who certainly did was Elizabeth Taylor and it helped her build up one of the most remarkable and dazzling private collections of jewellery ever created. Following her death in March aged 79, Christie’s announced on Wednesday it is to sell nearly 300 of the star’s jewels over two sessions in New York. There will be diamonds, pearls, emeralds, rubies and sapphires; rings, earrings, necklaces, brooches, tiaras and more in a sale expected to make over $30m (£19m). The chairman and president of Christie’s America, Marc Porter, said the sale promised “to captivate the auction world”. He added: “This is without a doubt the greatest private collection of jewellery assembled in one place.” Taylor’s obsession with jewellery is well-chronicled. Her twice-husband Richard Burton said: “I introduced Liz to beer, and she introduced me to Bulgari.” If your jaw would ever drop at a piece of jewellery then it would drop at some of the gifts from Burton, not least “the Elizabeth Taylor Diamond”, a 33.19 carat monster of a diamond ring that she cheerfully wore most days after being given it in 1968. Taylor once said: “My ring gives me the strangest feeling for beauty. With its sparks of red and white and blue and purple, and on and on, really, it sort of hums with its own beatific life.” Its estimate may be a tad beyond most means – $2.5m to $3.5m. Burton was also responsible for “It’s a beautiful day, I love you” gifts and an “It’s Tuesday, I love you” present of a Bulgari emerald suite – necklace pendant, ring, bracelet, earrings – collected over the course of many trips to the Bulgari boutique on Rome’s Via Condotti while they were filming Cleopatra. He is alleged to have claimed “the only word Elizabeth knows in Italian is Bulgari”. Then there is his 1968 Christmas present to her which she almost missed because Burton had buried it so deep in her Christmas stocking. The perfect red ruby ring is estimated at $1m to $1.5m. Two years later Burton and Taylor were relaxing at their luxury chalet in Gstaad playing ping pong. A challenge was set: if Taylor could take 10 points off him he would get her a diamond, and of course she did. The result was three very small diamond rings known as the ping pong diamonds, which may be more in some people’s price range at $5,000 to $7,000. Another Burton gift is a necklace – La Pérégrina – which contains one of the most important pearls there is, one discovered in the early 1500s in the Gulf of Panama which Philip II of Spain gave as a wedding gift to his wife Mary Tudor. Of course Taylor went through her husbands, and there are gifts in the sale from others, including husband number three Mike Todd, who died in a plane crash a year after their marriage in 1957. She wore the diamond tiara he gave her – “you are my queen” – to the Oscars in 1957, where Todd won best picture for Around the World in 80 Days. Another present was the Cartier Ruby suite which he surprised her with as she was swimming laps in the pool of her luxury Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat villa. She was without a mirror and looked at her reflection in the pool and wrote afterwards: “I just shrieked with joy, put my arms around Mike’s neck, and pulled him into the pool after me.” It will be a sale the like of which has not been seen since Sotheby’s sold Wallis Simpson’s vast collection of jewellery by the shores of Lake Geneva in 1987. Taylor was, naturally, at the sale, outbidding everyone to buy the “Prince of Wales” brooch that she admired whenever she saw the duchess. Other pieces in the sale relate to specific films such as her diamond, gold, emerald and sapphire Night of the Iguana brooch which always brought to mind lovely days spent at her Mexican residencia in Gringo Gulch, Puerto Vallarta – joined, as it was, by a bridge to Burton’s. Taylor always intended that her collection would go to auction. In her 2002 memoir, My Love Affair With Jewellery, Taylor wrote: “I never, never thought of my jewellery as trophies. I’m here to take care of them and to love them. When I die and they go off to auction I hope whoever buys them gives them a really good home.” François Curiel, Christie’s international jewellery director, recalled first meeting Taylor in 1998: “It was clear that she possessed an expert’s eye for craftmanship, rarity, quality and history. She collected the best pieces from the best periods, and as a result her collection boasts exquisite examples from the most celebrated of jewellery designers.” The jewellery will be sold over two sessions on 14 December. It will be on display at Christie’s London on 24-26 September. Elizabeth Taylor Mark Brown guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Ministers are looking at how benefits, or tax credits could be taken away under plans being drawn up in response to the riots Magistrates and crown court judges could be asked to dock benefits from convicted criminals under preliminary proposals being drawn up by the government in response to the riots, the Guardian can reveal. Ministers are looking hard at how benefits, or tax credits, could be taken away to show criminals that privileges provided by the state can be temporarily withdrawn. Under the proposals anyone convicted of a crime could be punished once rather than potentially facing separate fines – first by a magistrates court and then a benefit office. By giving powers to the courts to strip benefits, the Department of Work and Pensions would no longer be obliged to intervene directly in the criminal justice system. Sources indicate that a vast array of punitive options are being examined as Whitehall races to meet an October deadline to publish its post-riot response. Number 10 is actively looking at the withdrawal of child maintenance or child benefit from parents who allow children to truant, or repeatedly allow them to stay on the streets late at night. Ministers are also looking at ensuring prisoners released from jail without a job are fast-tracked on to the government’s Work Programme. Some councils have announced plans to evict families of convicted rioters from social housing. But ministers are increasingly wary of measures to evict families after a child has broken the law, pointing out that government has a duty to prevent hardship, and might anyway simply be required to rehouse them in more expensive bed-and-breakfast accommodation. David Cameron has also drafted in the victims’ commissioner, Louise Casey, to set out how the government should intervene with the 120,000 families identified as having deep-seated problems. Casey, best known for her invention of the controversial antisocial behaviour orders, oversaw a multi-agency approach to problem families from the Home Office. She has in the past expressed frustration at the lack of co-ordination between government agencies in their efforts to help chaotic families, and Cameron regards her as well placed to judge what went wrong or right with Labour programmes. Ministers have pointed to the failure of health officials – locally and nationally – to co-operate with efforts to identify problem families. Health officials claim they have a duty to patient confidentiality, but in fact are often best placed to identify early a family liable to go off the rails. In 2008 Gordon Brown promised to target “more than 110,000 problem families with disruptive young people”. Parents were to be put on intensive courses to help them supervise their children. In response to the riots, Cameron said he would require each family’s problems be addressed by the end of parliament. The latest official figures show that in 2009-10 only 3,518 families were actually in the intervention programme and it has helped only 7,300 families since being set up in 2006. The Department for Education has compiled a list identifying the whereabouts of problem families. But since coming to power the Conservatives have removed ringfencing from the programme. Westminster council is now being cited by ministers for running the most successful example of a family recovery programme. Set up in 2008, parents joining a six-month programme are required to sign a contract with the council to take part. A team is appointed for a family as a single contact point acting as the gateway to all public services. The agreement sets out the possible sanctions – eviction, parenting orders, care proceedings and other forms of court action – in the event of a repeated failure to co-operate with the programme. The council claims the average number of arrests for crime households dropped from 9 to 1.5 a month and antisocial behaviour was reduced by nearly half. The government is also looking at offering clear options to rehouse families where a gang member wants to leave a gang but fears retribution. Ministers want more councils to be open about the scale of the gang problem, and claim that until the pervasiveness of gangs is admitted, progress will not be made. Ministers are also looking at schemes in Boston and New York, where the police do much more after hours to help youngsters. They believe the crisis gives the police an opportunity to rethink its concept of community policing. Ministers also suggest the option of a public inquiry into the riots has not yet been irrevocably ruled out. So far the government has appointed a panel to hear voices from inner-city communities where the riots occurred. Cameron is instinctively opposed to a further expensive public inquiry so soon after he appointed the inquiry into the future of media regulation. UK riots State benefits Welfare Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …