The Guardian World News

---

• Cameron backtracks on Libya no-fly zone plan
• Bailouts to blame for cuts – King
• MPs critical of Britain's Afghan policy
• Christian Dior fires John Galliano
• RAF sets out plans to cut 1,000 jobs
• American couple 'confess to kidnap'
• GP surgeries in stock market link
• Exeter to charge £9,000 tuition fees
• Plagiarism row fells German minister
• Gender ruling hits insurance costs
• Britain to cut aid to poorest countries
• UN inspectors targeted in Ivory Coast
• Respect rules, China tells journalists
• Assange in 'Jewish conspiracy' row
• 'It might have been so much more if it only had a heart'
• Captain in a mink coat
• Eminem and Arctic Monkeys at V
• EU discards plan protects fishermen
• St David's Day: recipes for a feast
• Jimmy Wales
• To pee or not to pee?
• Richard Wolff
• How to be … a cookery show judge
• 'Noxious' weed threatens Masai Mara

Cameron backtracks on Libya no-fly zone plan Posted: 01 Mar 2011 01:50 PM PST David Cameron's suggestion of establishing no-fly zone over Libya and arming rebels rejected by US and France Britain has backtracked from its belligerent military stance over Libya after the Obama administration publicly distanced itself from David Cameron's suggestion that Nato should establish a no-fly zone over the country and that rebel forces should be armed. As senior British military sources expressed concern that Downing Street appeared to be overlooking the dangers of being sucked into a long and potentially dangerous operation, the prime minister said Britain would go no further than contacting the rebel forces at this stage. The marked change of tone by the prime minister, who told MPs on Monday that Britain did not "in any way rule out the use of military assets", came as the British-educated son of Muammar Gaddafi mocked Cameron for trying to act as a hero. Saif al-Islam told Sky News: "Everybody wants to be a hero, to be important in history." In Libya, Gaddafi appeared to settling into a deeper stalemate as attacks by his forces failed to dislodge the opposition from areas of several cities that they hold. A convoy of government aid, which Gaddafi's government said was bound for the eastern city of the rebel-held eastern city of Benghazi, set out from Tripoli . The 20 trucks were carrying food and medicine. Aid agencies have expressed concerns over how long food will last inside Libya, as the UN high commissioner for refugees said 140,000 people have now fled the country. Tunisian border guards are struggling to cope with the swelling flood of foreign workers trying to get out. The change in rhetoric from Britain came as the US made clear it would adopt a more cautious approach and European diplomats expressed surprise at Cameron's rhetoric. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, giving evidence to the House foreign affairs committee , suggested military intervention by the US and other countries might be counter-productive. She said the administration was aware that the Libyan opposition was anxious to be seen "as doing this by themselves on behalf of the Libyan people – that there not be outside intervention by any external force. We respect that." General James Mattis, the commander of US Central Command, told a Senate hearing: "It would be a military operation. It wouldn't be just telling people not to fly airplanes." The French prime minister, François Fillon, pointedly remarked that no country could "carry out this operation alone". In a further sign of Cameron's isolation, the White House was dismissive of his suggestion that rebels could be armed. Tommy Vietor, a national security spokesman for Barack Obama, told Reuters: "We believe it's premature to make any decisions of that kind." Britain made clear it was keeping alive the option of a no-fly zone. William Hague, the foreign secretary, said it could be implemented without the authorisation of the UN security council. "It depends on the situation on the ground," he told the BBC in a reference to the precedent of citing humanitarian need. British military commanders were pressing ahead with detailed contingency plans for a no-fly zone over Libya at Britain's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) in Northwood, northwest London. But on the day 170 trainee RAF pilots were made redundant, one official reflected wide concern in British military circles about the risk of another dangerous operation at a time UK forces are stretched in Afghanistan, and against the background of a serious budget crisis to the forces. In the event of an international agreement to impose a no-fly zone, the UK would deploy Typhoon jets to RAF Akrotiri, in one of the British base areas on Cyprus, officials said. An RAF Awacs aircraft is already deployed in Malta. But Cameron did back away from the suggestion that rebel forces could be armed. "We should be making contact with and getting a greater understanding of the opposition forces which are now in Benghazi and in control of quite a lot of the country," he said in Downing Street. "We are trying to step up our contact with them so we can get to know them better and know what their intentions are. I don't think we should go beyond that for now." The US is deploying four naval vessels close to Libya to be available to help with humanitarian aid and any military objectives. The initial focus is on aid and limited military objectives such as disrupting the communications of the Libyan leader. David Cameron Muammar Gaddafi Libya Middle East Military Hillary Clinton Barack Obama US military France United States Nicholas Watt Peter Beaumont Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Bailouts to blame for cuts – King Posted: 01 Mar 2011 01:25 PM PST Mervyn King tells MPs: 'The price of this financial crisis is being borne by people who absolutely did not cause it' Mervyn King has risked reopening the bitter argument over blame for the financial crisis by saying that government spending cuts are the fault of the City and expressing surprise there has not been more public anger. The governor of the Bank of England said that people made unemployed and businesses bankrupted during the crisis had every reason to be resentful and voice their protest. He told the Treasury select committee that the billions spent bailing out the banks and the need for public spending cuts were the fault of the financial services sector. "The price of this financial crisis is being borne by people who absolutely did not cause it," he said. "Now is the period when the cost is being paid, I'm surprised that the degree of public anger has not been greater than it has." King has repeatedly pointed the finger at the City since the crisis erupted in 2007, but this was the first time he blamed bankers for the coalition's spending cuts. It became clear during the hearing that King and his fellow members of the Bank's monetary policy committee, which sets interest rates, believe the crisis will have a lasting impact on the economy. Asked when living standards enjoyed before the crisis would return, King said: "The research makes it clear that the impact of these crises lasts for many years. It is not like an ordinary recession, where you lose output and get it back quickly. We may not get the lost output back for very many years, if ever." King faced tough questions from Labour MPs who believe the Bank should not have supported the Treasury's cuts programme. Accused by Andy Love, the Labour MP for Edmonton, of giving George Osborne cover for spending cuts, King denied that meetings with the chancellor resulted in a cosy agreement to keep interest rates low to support austerity measures. He said: "There has never been any attempt on any occasion to influence the monetary policy committee on what decisions it should take." In a further provocation to the financial sector, King set out plans for an overhaul of City regulation and oversight that would allow banks to fail when they get into trouble. He told MPs it was necessary to move away from rules designed to prevent banks failing, with a safety net provided by taxpayers, to a system that allowed banks to fail in an orderly way. Mervyn King Bank of England Banks and building societies Economics Global economy Financial crisis Global recession Banking Phillip Inman guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

MPs critical of Britain's Afghan policy Posted: 01 Mar 2011 10:00 PM PST Cross-party report suggests justification for fighting war 'may have been achieved some time ago' Counter-insurgency measures in Afghanistan are not working and could be counter-productive unless the US and its allies start peace talks with the Taliban, a parliamentary committee report will say today. The cross-party report, by the Tory-led foreign affairs committee, follows a seven-month enquiry and argues that Britain's policy in Afghanistan is flawed. It suggests that the justification for fighting the war – to eliminate Afghanistan as a base for al-Qaida – "may have been achieved some time ago" and it questions whether the sacrifices of the armed services in Afghanistan "have a direct connection to the UK's core objective". The committee also queries whether the "ambitious aim" to defeat the Taliban and build a functioning, stable, Afghan government, is achievable. "The evidence presented to the committee has suggested that the current full-scale and highly intensive counter-insurgency campaign is not succeeding," the report says. The Tory MP Richard Ottaway, chair of the committee, suggested the focus on the fight against the Taliban and tendency to lump the group with al-Qaida as a common enemy, could alienate the population. "There is a danger that without appropriate political leadership, the current military campaign is in danger of inadvertently de-railing efforts to secure a political solution to what is essentially a political problem," Ottaway said in a statement issued alongside the report. The committee's main recommendation is for the UK to encourage the US to be involved in the search for a political solution, including direct contact with the Taliban. A US report last month said secret, exploratory, negotiations had begun but it remains unclear how interested the Taliban leaders are in peace talks. Some commanders of the insurgency are said to be weary of the conflict, but European officials warn that others believe they are winning and only have to wait for Nato's eventual departure. The foreign secretary, William Hague, said the report may already be out of date. "The situation in Afghanistan is constantly changing and in some cases has moved on from the evidence given to the [committee]." Foreign policy Defence policy Afghanistan Taliban Julian Borger guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Christian Dior fires John Galliano Posted: 01 Mar 2011 11:11 AM PST Final straw for fashion house appears to have been video showing John Galliano apparently declaring his love for Hitler Christian Dior has sacked John Galliano for "odious behaviour" after he was accused of making antisemitic and racist insults in a drunken rant. The flamboyant Briton, who has been the haute couture house's creative director for 15 years, is under police investigation. Dior said it had a policy of "zero tolerance" towards antisemitism. It suspended Galliano last week after he was arrested when a couple complained he insulted them in a Paris bar. Galliano, 50, denies making anti-semitic remarks, and detectives have said they have no third-party witnesses. But a video has surfaced of Galliano declaring on another occasion that "I love Hitler" and telling two women their parents "would have been gassed". "Because of the particularly odious character of the behaviour and comments made by John Galliano in a video made public on Monday, the Dior house decided to suspend him immediately and has engaged in a process to dismiss him," a statement said. The designer was due to unveil his autumn/winter 2011 collection on Friday. Dior has said the show of his designs will go on, without him. Across the Atlantic, the Oscar-winning actor Natalie Portman, who is the face of Miss Dior Cherie perfume, said she was "deeply shocked and disgusted" and wanted nothing to do with Galliano. Portman, 29, was on Sunday named best actress for her performance in Black Swan. She said: "As an individual who is proud to be Jewish, I will not be associated with Mr Galliano in any way." But Italian designer Giorgio Armani said he felt "sorry for" his colleague. Galliano has made dresses for Princess Diana and France's first lady, Carla Bruni, and is designing the model Kate Moss's wedding dress. He spent more than five hours at a police station in central Paris on Monday as investigators sought to establish what had happened in two incidents. Galliano was arrested on Thursday in the chic Marais district after he allegedly insulted a Jewish woman and her Asian boyfriend in La Perle bar. His lawyer, Stéphane Zerbib, said the designer was counter-suing the couple for defamation. Two days later, a second woman came forward claiming Galliano had similarly insulted her in the same bar in October. The final straw for Dior appears to have been the video, reportedly shot in La Perle in December, showing Galliano telling two women: "I love Hitler. People like you would be dead. Your mothers, your forefathers would all be fucking gassed." Police have not charged Galliano and a source said: "We are going to evaluate the credibility of the accusations and Mr Galliano's denials before deciding what action to take." Fashion designers Fashion France Judaism Europe Natalie Portman Kim Willsher guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

RAF sets out plans to cut 1,000 jobs Posted: 01 Mar 2011 08:49 AM PST RAF begins redundancy programme required by defence review and will disband two Tornado fighter squadrons by June The armed forces have begun announcing plans that could lead to up to 11,000 servicemen and women being made redundant over the next four years. At a Ministry of Defence briefing, the RAF became the first of the services to set out in detail how it intends to cuts its numbers in line with last year's strategic defence and security review. All RAF staff, including those currently serving in Afghanistan, have been told that the service intends to make 1,020 redundancies within six months. This first of four tranches will be made up of 170 trainee pilots, 200 weapons operators, more than 500 ground staff and 121 other officers up to the rank of air commodore. The service will seek volunteers, but acknowledged this would not be enough and that some people who wanted to stay would face the axe. It will disband two Tornado fighter squadrons by June. Liam Fox, the defence secretary, insisted the redundancy programme would be handled with "utmost sensitivity. No one who is deployed on operations, recently returned from operations or is preparing to deploy on operations will be made redundant unless they have volunteered. Nor will those undergoing rehabilitation from injury be considered," Fox said. However, the MoD conceded that anyone currently serving in Afghanistan for the RAF could be subject to compulsory redundancy on 1 September if they have returned from operations and taken all their leave. Commodore Jonathan Woodcock, the RAF's head of pay and manning, said: "Put simply, the less kit we have the less people we need." Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, said: "This is incredible. At the same time as planning a no-fly zone over Libya the government chose today of all days to sack RAF personnel. The pilots will be stunned and the country will be confused. These are the very same people who would help enforce no-fly zones in years to come. The government is losing its way on defence and should reopen its defence review." Last year's review set out proposals to cut 17,000 jobs from the armed forces - 5,000 each from the RAF and the navy, and 7,000 from the army. The MoD believes it can cut 6,000 from this total by not replacing people who have left, but that still leaves a rump of 11,000 jobs to axe. The navy and army will set out their plans for redundancy in early April. Of all the services, the RAF believes it has been hit hardest by the review. It has lost its fleet of Harrier jump jets, and its Hercules transport jets - used to rescue Britons in Libya - are to be withdrawn from service early. Three bases, including Kinloss in Moray will no longer be used by the RAF. There is talk that its fleet of Tornado fighters could also be taken out of service. The MoD needs to find an extra £1bn of cuts before the end of the spending round later this month because it has overspent its budget. Military Defence policy Liam Fox Jim Murphy Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

American couple 'confess to kidnap' Posted: 01 Mar 2011 09:41 AM PST Phillip and Nancy Garrido, accused of holding Dugard captive for 18 years, hoped to get wife's sentence reduced, says lawyer A sex offender and his wife, who are alleged to have kidnapped an 11-year-old girl in California and held her captive in their garden for 18 years, are said to have have confessed to investigators in an attempt to reduce the wife's sentence. Stephen Tapson, defending Nancy Garrido, said in Placerville, California, that she had confessed to the crimes, which captured headlines around the world. The victim, Jaycee Dugard, was discovered in August 2009 hidden in a shed with two teenage girls who had been fathered by Phillip Garrido, Nancy's husband. At the end of last year, Nancy Garrido gave a full confession to police in the hope that her sentence would be reduced sufficiently to allow her to be released before she died. Phillip Garrido is also said to have made a confession in an attempt to assist her bid for leniency. But the ploy appears to have failed. At the weekend, the prosecuting authorities released their plea bargain offer to the Garridos: should they plead guilty, Phillip would be sentenced to 440 years and Nancy to 242 years. "I was hoping for a chance for parole. My hopes were dashed," Tapson told reporters outside the court in El Dorado county, where the Garridos are expected to face separate trials later this year. Speculation has surrounded the extent of Nancy Garrido's involvement in the alleged heinous acts of her husband. She has been charged with 18 counts of kidnapping and false imprisonment. Tapson said Nancy had confessed to helping her husband to grab Dugard from a street in South Lake Tahoe in 1991 and then abducting her to their home in Antioch about 170 miles away. Tapson added that she had not been "involved in any sexual activity, but was aware of it going on". He said her crimes deserved a sentence of 20 to 30 years, but not life. Nancy has pleaded not guilty, while Phillip, who had already been convicted of a sex offence when the kidnapping happened, has yet to make his plea. Tapson said the defence case he would outline before any jury would be that Nancy had been under the power of her husband, in a parallel of what happened to Patty Hearst, the heiress who came under the sway of her kidnappers in the Symbionese Liberation Army. Prosecutors have expressed their desire to avoid a trial, as it would probably force Jaycee Dugard to testify. Jaycee Lee Dugard kidnap United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

GP surgeries in stock market link Posted: 01 Mar 2011 04:05 PM PST Government says it will 'look carefully' at proposal by firm aiming to sign doctors up to commissioning plan The government's health service reforms could lead to GP practices being partially floated on the stock market, it has emerged. Under the health secretary Andrew Lansley's health and social care bill, which is going through parliament, GP consortiums will begin to control £80bn of NHS funds to commission healthcare from 2013. But in documents obtained by Channel 4 News and passed to the Guardian, one private health firm, IHP, proposes that the commissioning budget for patients be handed over to a private company in which family doctors would own a 20% stake. IHP is in talks with three GP consortiums to set up a company that would turn underspends in their annual budget – in effect, savings on patient spending – into profits. This company, which aims to list on the stock market in three to five years, would treat patients at 95% of the cost of the NHS. This putative saving, amounting to £40 per patient, would be booked as "profit". Oliver Bernath, IHP's founder and a former consultant neurologist who went on to work at the management consultant McKinsey, told the Guardian that for the scheme to work it would need to cover at least 2 million patients – with 1,000 GPs signed up. At such a scale, representing about 5% of England's population, potential annual earnings would be about £80m. With profits as large as this, a share listing could net individual family doctors a windfall of almost £1m. Money raised from the stock market would be used to build hospitals and IT systems – motivating private money to build healthcare facilities that would rival the NHS. "We are looking to get the first consortiums signed and ready in April with 100,000 patients," said Bernath. "The whole NHS is £80bn in spending and if GPs can take underspends then we can get a large audience fairly quickly. Investors will find it very attractive fairly quickly." The Department of Health said a national commissioning board and regulator would prevent perceived or potential conflicts of interest. "GPs cannot 'pocket' savings from their budget. A consortium's commissioning budget must be used exclusively for patient care. We will look at IHP's proposals carefully, but we are clear we will not allow a situation where profits can be made at the expense of patient care or patient choice." "We have empowered GPs to commission services for their patients as they are best placed to make the right clinical decisions whilst achieving value for money." The IHP plan works by using a loophole in the legislation that allows a private firm to be handed a GP consortium's commissioning budget by claiming it is a provider as well as a purchaser of healthcare. Academics and frontline staff have continually warned that the government's bill does not insulate GPs from seeking financial bonuses from underspends. Kieran Walshe, the professor of health policy and management at Manchester Business School, examined IHP's plans and said they amounted to "privatising NHS commissioning". Bernath, who has run his plans past the head of the NHS, Sir David Nicholson, says such criticism is misplaced. He says already family doctors "can pocket underspends by not spending the money meant for their practice. If they choose to get a cheaper nurse , it is money for them. I don't understand the emotional arguments over public and private in the NHS. If you ask most people whether they could have private healthcare or the NHS they would choose private." Peter Carter, chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, said he did not "want perverse incentives [being created] for the leaders of the new consortiums to underspend. It would send out a mixed message to NHS staff if they are seeing cuts in frontline services in one part of the NHS and bonuses elsewhere." The news comes at a crucial time for the health bill, with MPs due to vote on whether to allocate the £1.8bn needed for Lansley's radical shakeup of the NHS. The government will announce that 177 groups of GPs have banded together as shadow consortiums – covering two-thirds of England's population – in a step designed to bolster support for the bill. The shadow health secretary, John Healey, warned that it was " deeply concerning that there is a lack of provision in the health bill to prevent (deals such as IHP) from happening, and we will be doing all we can to block such deals being struck." "Building in incentives like this could lead to under-treatment in the name of achieving budget underspends, and in doing so seriously undermine patient-GP relations. Patients need to know their GPs are making decisions on the basis of medical need, not financial self-interest." • Further investigation of NHS reforms can be seen on Channel 4 News at 7pm on Wednesday GPs Health policy NHS Doctors Health Randeep Ramesh guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Exeter to charge £9,000 tuition fees Posted: 01 Mar 2011 04:05 PM PST Extra money 'needed to meet the higher expectations of students and fund places for the less well-off' Exeter has become the first university outside the top 20 in the Russell Group to announce that it will charge the maximum £9,000 fee for a degree from next year, saying it will need the extra income to meet higher expectations from students. Exeter, which follows Cambridge and Imperial College London in confirming plans to treble fees, also said it would offer fee waivers or bursaries for students from less well-off backgrounds. Ministers have said the maximum fee should only apply in "exceptional circumstances". David Allen, Exeter's registrar and deputy chief executive, said: "By setting our fees at the £9,000 level we are able to continue to invest in the student experience, and spend a lot more money to bring in more people from less well-off backgrounds. "We are talking about having more academic staff, improving the staff-student ratio, more contact hours. What we're doing is to try and give the best possible experience to our students." Exeter is a member of the 1994 group of smaller research-intensive universities, which includes East Anglia, York and Leicester. Its decision will increase pressure on similar universities to opt for maximum fees to maintain their prestige. Some universities in this group are looking at whether to charge varying fees for different degrees. Universities minister David Willetts said that institutions would only need to charge £6,000 to cover the costs of arts and humanities students, whose courses are cheaper than science or medicine. He said: "The maximum allowable charge of £9,000 in 2012/13 would actually represent an increase for them of over 40% even after inflation, as against an increase of 20% or so for the other disciplines." But Exeter said it would have to raise fees simply to maintain the same quality of teaching. Allen said: "Our own calculations show that we would need a fee of at least £7,000 just to stand still. "I think you have to bear in mind there will be much higher student expectations, they will expect to see more staff, have better facilities, as more of the onus on paying for their education is coming on to them after graduating." When fee waivers are taken into account, the average tuition fee would be less than £9,000, the university said. The fee announcement does not cover the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, which is a partnership between Exeter and Plymouth Universities. The college lecturers' union, the UCU, said that the average fee needed to replace government funding cuts would be £6,863 for universities offering arts and humanities courses to break even. Sally Hunt, the UCU's general secretary, said: "Our own research shows to replace the money he [the government] has cut, the average fee needs to be almost £7,000. The government urgently needs to look again at the severity of its university funding cuts." Universities could face a change in the law to stop some of them from charging students £9,000 a year if too many institutions are "clustering their charges at the upper end", the government warned last month. Tuition fees University of Exeter University funding Students Higher education Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Plagiarism row fells German minister Posted: 01 Mar 2011 03:41 AM PST Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg had been stripped of doctorate by University of Bayreuth He was voted Germany's most popular politician, a chisel-jawed, gelled-haired aristocrat who held such rock-star status that his party used to play an AC/DC track every time he took to the stage. But Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg has resigned as defence minister after being engulfed by a plagiarism scandal, leaving the ruling coalition with a serious charisma vacuum. His departure is a huge blow for Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union party (CDU). Already weakened after defeats in recent regional elections, she is facing the prospect of implosion at six other local polls this year. The 39-year-old baron, often tipped to be a future chancellor, has handed in his notice to Merkel after almost two weeks of frontpage stories about the authenticity of his PhD thesis. He is now expected to retreat to his castle in Bavaria to plot his next move. "It is the most painful step I've ever had to take," Guttenberg said at a press conference in Berlin. "I was always prepared to fight but I have reached the limits of my powers." Last week the University of Bayreuth stripped Guttenberg of his doctorate after he admitted substantially copying (inadvertently, he said) from other sources. He blamed the errors on his busy schedule: when he finished his thesis in 2006, he was juggling his duties as an MP and raising two daughters with his TV presenter wife, the equally blue-blooded Countess Stephanie von Bismarck. The admission led to him being dubbed the minister for cut-and-paste, or Baron zu Googleberg. Merkel admitted she was caught off guard by the resignation, saying she was "surprised" when she received a request from Guttenberg to talk to her over the phone . She said she accepted his resignation "with a heavy heart" and praised Guttenberg as someone with an "exceptional political talent". It was too early to name a successor, she added, but a decision would be made shortly. Before the scandal broke last month, Guttenberg was often described as the "shooting star" of conservatism in Germany. He built a reputation as a plain-speaking man of action in a brief stint as economy minister and then, after the 2009 election, as defence minister. Good-looking and apparently fearless, he would swoop in to visit German troops in Afghanistan looking like an extra from Top Gun in aviator shades, flight suit and desert boots. These visits received breathless write-ups in Germany's multimillion-selling tabloid Bild, and pictures were splashed over gossip magazines. A new biography of Guttenberg, published on Tuesday, recalls how the dashing minister even had his own theme tune, Hell's Bells by the Australian rock band AC/DC, which would herald his arrival at events hosted by the CDU or its Bavarian sister party, the CSU. The book, Guttenberg Biographie, describes its subject as "Germany's number one celeb" and recalls how he had such presence that when he walked through a crowd he was like "Moses parting the Red Sea". In less than two years as defence minister, Guttenberg pushed through the most drastic reform of Germany's armed forces since the second world war. Most notably, he successfully fought for a plan to end conscription, part of an effort to slim down the German military and make it better adapted to an era in which it faces growing demands to deploy overseas. In his resignation speech, he insisted the reforms would continue. It was wrong that he had become the story, overshadowing the deaths and woundings of 13 Bundeswehr soldiers last week, he said. " I will gladly concede to my opponents that I was appoined minister for defence, not self-defence," he said. But however much praise he received for his bold decision-making in office, Guttenberg's crisis management after the plagiarism allegations emerged two weeks ago was less impressive. He issued a statement describing them as "absurd", then said he would stop using his title as a doctor only temporarily while Bayreuth University looked into the accusations. He told jeering lawmakers last week that he "did not deliberately cheat, but made serious errors". Merkel stood by Guttenberg, saying a week ago that she appointed him as defence minister, not as an academic assistant. But the scandal wouldn't go away, raising the possibility that Guttenberg would be a liability rather than an asset in forthcoming state elections. "I think that, if this had carried on longer … it could have done more damage than would making a clean cut now and looking forward," said Oskar Niedermayer, a political science professor at Berlin's Free University. Many commentators believe Guttenberg will rise again. Merkel herself refused to rule out a comeback, telling reporters she was confident that she would have the opportunity to work with Guttenberg again in the future. Referring to his resignation phone call, she said: "That certainly won't be the last time he and I have a personal conversation." It's all in the name One of the German media's favourite facts about the now former defence minister is his quite spectacular name. When he was born on 5 December 1971, the politician was christened Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Sylvester Joseph von und zu Guttenberg. The last bit means "baron of Guttenberg", a village in the Franken area of Bavaria where the Guttenbergs have had their family seat – an impressive castle – since 1315. His friends in politics preferred to call him simply K-T but his many enemies never tired of rolling out his freight train of a monicker to remind everyone of their rival's noble background. Despite his privileged upbringing – or perhaps because of it – Guttenberg was hugely popular with the tabloid Bild newspaper, which rarely referred to him without mentioning that he was "Germany's most popular politician" – an honour he received via a poll in 2009, when he took the top spot from Angela Merkel. He was also referred to as the "German Kennedy", with his stylish TV presenter wife inevitably described as his "Jackie O". But over the past two weeks, Guttenberg has received yet more nicknames, most notably Baron zu Googleberg, the minister for cut and paste. Germany Europe Helen Pidd guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Gender ruling hits insurance costs Posted: 01 Mar 2011 03:06 AM PST European court of justice prohibits use of gender in underwriting premiums, with car insurance, life insurance and pension annuities set to be affected Young women drivers buying car insurance and any man considering retirement will get a worse deal from the end of next year, following a ruling prohibiting the use of gender in insurance underwriting. The ruling, by the European court of justice, means insurers will no longer be able to use sex as a factor to determine whether someone represents a bigger risk in insurance terms, even though historical evidence shows that being male or female has a bearing on frequency and size of claims. Maggie Craig, acting director general for the Association of British Insurers, said: "This gender ban is disappointing news for UK consumers and something the UK insurance industry has fought against for the last decade. The judgment ignores the fact that taking a person's gender into account, where relevant to the risk, enables men and women alike to get a more accurate price for their insurance." The underwriting of car insurance, life insurance and pension annuities are particularly likely to be affected. Insurers have until now charged young men significantly more to reflect the fact they are more likely to have serious accidents: a male driver under 21 is twice as likely to have an accident than a woman under 21. But the insurance industry will now have to rip up its current pricing model, and young men under the age of 25 are now likely to see premiums decrease by an average of 10%, and in some cases 25%. Adrian Webb of esure said the prohibitively high cost of car insurance for young men has previously helped discourage them from buying high performance vehicles, thus reducing the risk to themselves and others. "If young men's premiums are artificially reduced, this could lead to more opting to choose more powerful vehicles," he said. "It is particularly alarming given that the head of the Association of Police Officers in the UK in 2005 noted that the biggest killer of young women in Britain is their boyfriend's and male friends' driving." At the same time, car insurance premiums for women under the age of 25 are expected to rise by an average of 25% by the end of 2012, but by up to 60% for the youngest drivers, which could translate into an extra £500-£1,000 a year for some. Biba, the British Insurance Brokers' Association, said: "Effectively, females will now pay a cross-subsidy for males on their insurance premiums." The AA warned that many insurers will find the young driver market "too risky" and pull out altogether, thereby reducing competition and pushing up prices. But Martin Lewis, creator of MoneySavingExpert.com, believes banning the use of gender for car insurance is sensible: "With car insurance I think there is some logic to this ban – gender price differences are based on behaviour. Why should one man pay more because others behaved badly? Would we allow the same to happen based on racial differences? "However, in the main it is ludicrous. Most cost differences are because women live longer – that's not bias, it's biology, and there is nothing wrong with factoring that into quotes. For example, it means women get better annuity rates but worse life-term assurance costs." Women could see a 20% rise in the cost of life insurance while men could benefit from a fall of about 10%, the ABI said. More men than women take out life insurance, resulting in the different figures. However, older men will suffer a fall of about 8% in income from their annuities on retirement. Until now insurers have been able to factor in the shorter life span of men compared to women when underwriting these contracts, allowing men to benefit from a higher income than women. The ABI says the income from women's annuities is likely to rise, but joint annuities, which pay out an income to the surviving spouse after the death of a husband or wife, will also be hit. Wealthy investors with bigger pensions can avoid buying an annuity by drawing an income from their pension funds instead, subject to rules set by the government. But the level of income they can withdraw is also likely to be affected by the ruling, according to Tom McPhail, pension expert with independent financial adviser Hargreaves Lansdown. He said: "The GAD rates on which the level of income you can draw down is based were under review, but HM Revenue and Customs said it would wait until the outcome of this ruling was known. "The fact that the ruling has come out against the use of gender probably means the level of income men can withdraw will fall, while that withdrawn by women may rise slightly." Craig added: "Insurers will now study this judgment carefully to manage negative effects for customers. Insurers will work hard to ensure that the UK insurance market remains one of the most competitive in the world offering a strong choice of products and prices for customers. "It will be crucial to ensure this news does not put people off having vital insurance that protects them against accident or illness, or provides an income in retirement. Insurance remains good value for people and not all customers will be equally affected as the use of gender can vary significantly between products and different companies. Each company will have to respond to the ban in the way they feel is in their customers' interests." Insurance Car insurance Motoring Life insurance Annuities Pensions Retirement planning Court of justice of the European Union Jill Insley Rupert Jones guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Britain to cut aid to poorest countries Posted: 01 Mar 2011 01:29 PM PST Sixteen nations will no longer receive bilateral aid from Britain by 2016 as UK refocuses on security rather than development Britain is to stop sending direct aid to Burundi and Niger, two of the world's poorest countries, the government announced as it unveiled plans to rebalance the £8.4bn international development budget. The two African nations, which are ranked second and fourth respectively in a World Bank list of the world's poorest states, are among 16 countries that will no longer receive bilateral aid from Britain by 2016. Direct aid will also be halted to Lesotho which is ranked 28th on the World Bank list. Burundi, a landlocked country in the unstable Great Lakes region of Africa, is still suffering from the consequences of the Hutu-Tutsi massacres in the 1990s when 200,000 of its citizens died. Niger, a landlocked country in west Africa, depends on foreign aid for half of the government's budget. The cuts were outlined to MPs by Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, as he unveiled the conclusions of two reviews into Britain's bilateral and multilateral aid programmes. Cutting aid to the 16 countries would allow Britain to concentrate its resources on 27 countries which include Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Africa. Harriet Harman, the shadow international development, challenged Mitchell to explain the cuts to such poor countries. Harman asked: "Can he confirm that decisions to cut aid to very poor countries like Niger and Lesotho involved co-ordination with other donor countries to make sure that our decisions don't leave them literally high and dry? Can I also ask him to explain his decision to end aid to Burundi where there is deep poverty and which is in the Great Lakes region where there is still instability?" Mitchell admitted that tough decisions had been made. "I will confirm that other donors were involved in the decision [about Niger]. We decided that it was not appropriate to keep a bilateral programme in Niger. Much of the work that is being done in Niger, which is in an enormously food insecure part of the world, is done on a multilateral basis. Last year I agreed specific support on a humanitarian basis to feed 810,000 people. "We are very much engaged in Niger on a humanitarian basis but we look to other countries to share the burden. We strongly support the multilateral architecture in addressing the position in Niger."Mitchell admitted that the decision on Burundi was tough: "We had a very small programme there. We judged that it was right to close it. These are tough and difficult decisions. We thought we could spend the money better elsewhere. But TradeMark East Africa, which we very strongly support, will be based there as well and wiring them into the regional infrastructure is extremely important." Mitchell said the reviews were designed to ensure better value for money and to target resources at achieving key goals over the next four years. These include: • Securing schooling for 11 million children – far higher than the number of children educated in the UK but at 2.5% of the cost. • Vaccinating more children against preventable diseases than the number of children in England. • Saving the lives of 50,000 women in pregnancy and childbirth. Mitchell said: "Aid can perform miracles but it must be well spent and properly targeted. The UK's development programme has now been reshaped and refocused so that it can meet that challenge." As part of the review Britain is to save £50m by cutting discretionary payments to four multilateral organisations. Britain will withdraw from the UN Industrial Development Organisation and will stop voluntary core funding to UN Habitat, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Labour MPs reacted angrily to the decision to withdraw discretionary funding to the ILO. Denis MacShane, the former Europe minister, was highly critical of Mitchell who used to work for Lazard bank. "This attack on the ILO will horrify every trade union worker around the world. Britain founded the ILO, in the 1980s it was central to getting rid of Soviet communism and apartheid South Africa," said MacShane. "I know the secretary of state has to represent Lazard and the bankers' community - but this attack on working people around the world is shameful."Mitchell said: "The decision on the ILO was a recommendation from the multilateral aid review. It says in the professional analysis that the ILO has a wide range of organisational weaknesses, including weak cost control and results reporting and limited transparency." Ethiopia will become the biggest recipient of bilateral aid over the next two years. Pakistan could become the biggest recipient of British aid within three years, with a major focus on education, British officials in Islamabad said, but only if the government reduces chronic corruption. Just 56% of Pakistani children between five and nine years' old attend primary school, a rate that British officials want to boost to the world average of 87%. But the school system is chronically dysfunctional due to political interference, "ghost schools" and unqualified teachers. "It's an education emergency," said one official. As well as reducing graft, British officials want to see Pakistan increase its tax collection, currrently at a disastrously low rate of nine per cent of GDP with many parliamentarians paying little tax. The Pakistani government has vowed to improve education spending from two per cent GDP to seven per cent. British officials said they recognised that British aid was a "drop in the bucket" in a country of 180 million people, but hoped that a targeted aid programme could "catalyse change" in critical areas like education. Direct financial transfers to the Pakistani exchequer, which amounted to £120 million over four years under the last aid programme, are likely to be scrapped, officials said. Aid Declan Walsh Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

UN inspectors targeted in Ivory Coast Posted: 01 Mar 2011 11:34 AM PST Weapons inspectors shot at by troops while investigating claims president broke arms embargo by importing attack helicopters UN experts have come under fire in Ivory Coast as they investigate claims that president Laurent Gbagbo broke an arms embargo by importing attack helicopters from Belarus, a spokesman said today. The latest attack on the UN came amid warnings of a humanitarian disaster as the west African nation seems to be on a downward spiral towards civil war. The charge that Gbagbo is receiving military aid from Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko came from the UN's secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon. Gbagbo's government dismissed it as a "lie" while Belarus said it was "groundless". Ban later qualified the allegation in comments to reporters in Washington, saying the UN-appointed group of experts in Ivory Coast had "credible information that the government of Belarus may be providing attack helicopters to forces loyal to Gbagbo". He added: "If it is confirmed, this will be a direct violation of [the] arms embargo by the security council. We are trying to confirm this." It was when the experts tried to search an airport in the capital, Yamoussoukro, where they believed the helicopters to be, that they were shot at by Ivorian forces, according to UN mission spokesman Hamadoun Toure. "That's what they said," he told Reuters, adding that the investigation into the helicopters was continuing. "We are trying to have several details but so far nothing." In New York, the UN Ivory Coast sanctions committee discussed the charge that Belarus had violated the embargo. "It looks as if the sanctions committee has not yet been able to confirm the reported arms shipment," a spokesman for the German mission said. "They requested UNoci (the UN mission in Ivory Coast) and the panel of experts to continue monitoring the situation." Ivory Coast has been under an arms embargo since the last outbreak of serious violence in 2004, when pro-Gbagbo forces bombed French peacekeepers in the rebel-held north, but analysts say it has repeatedly been violated. Gun battles between forces loyal to Gbagbo and his rival Alassane Ouattara, almost universally recognised as the winner of last November's election, have intensified fears of a return to full-blown civil war. Cocoa prices rose to a 32-year peak on Monday as anxiety grew. Relations between Gbagbo and the UN mission are deteriorating, with state TV regularly broadcasting allegations about their collaboration with the rebels. Gbago's often violent young supporters responded to a call from their leader, Charles Ble Goude, at the weekend to block UN traffic. Two UN staff members were kidnapped by a mob on Monday, then released. Toure said a third had been robbed of his wallet. Abidjan, the commercial capital, increasingly resembles a city on the brink of war as AK-47 assault rifles and heavy weapons boom daily through the district of Abobo, the economy grinds to a standstill and thousands of people abandon their homes. But getting out is not easy. Armed men stopped some 60 families without food or water from leaving a church today, the UN said. There were long queues of government workers trying to cash pay cheques. The UN's refugee agency also expressed alarm about the conditions facing people trying to escape days of violence in Abobo. "There are reports of many dead bodies, buses burned and shops looted, and of young militiamen attacking people inside their homes," the agency said. Others fleeing the violence have been forced to pay people just to get out of the area, the agency said. Nearly 70,000 people have joined a mass exodus to neighbouring Liberia. Gbagbo's government said today that it was banning residents from filling jerrycans with petrol as fears of a shortage grow. Motorists in Abidjan rushed to fill up their car's tanks, then went home to siphon the petrol into a jerrycans. Some petrol stations had already run out of supplies and closed. Last week, when there were skirmishes in the west of the country between former rebels and pro-Gbagbo forces, was the first time the ceasefire between the two armed sides had been broken in six years. It led to a surge in the number of civilians fleeing to Liberia, putting further strain on aid agencies. Human Rights Watch said it had documented the recruitment and deployment of Liberian mercenaries in recent weeks, and credible sources indicated that some had fought alongside Gbagbo's forces during the recent clash. Daniel Bekele, Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said: "Côte d'Ivoire has been down this road before, and it's been marked by grave human-rights abuses and war crimes. Both Gbagbo and Ouattara need to send clear warnings to their troops to protect civilians and prisoners from harm." A military source told Reuters that increasing numbers of soldiers in the Ivorian military were deserting, by switching their phones off and going into hiding. A few are defecting to the other side. Several delegations of African leaders have come to Abidjan in attempts to persuade Gbagbo to leave office. Gbagbo has rejected all their proposals, including offers of amnesty and a comfortable exile abroad. Opponents are trying to strangle his government financially, and the European Union has prohibited European ships from docking in Abidjan's port. Ivory Coast United Nations Belarus David Smith guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Respect rules, China tells journalists Posted: 01 Mar 2011 10:48 AM PST Journalists told they need advance permission to report from parts of Beijing and must not do so from a site in Shanghai Chinese officials have warned foreign journalists they need advance permission to report from parts of Beijing and must not do so from a particular spot in Shanghai, marking an apparent tightening of media restrictions. A foreign ministry official appeared to blame the move on overseas journalists who said they were harassed at the site of proposed protests that did not materialise. Bloomberg News said men who appeared to be plainclothes police kicked and beat its cameraman in front of uniformed officers on Sunday, and a BBC correspondent said he and a colleague were roughed up and thrown into a van. Five news organisations reported having equipment confiscated or materials destroyed and other journalists were detained, delayed or manhandled as they reported from the site of proposed "jasmine revolution" protests, according to the Foreign Correspondents' Club of China. Officials had now told some media they require special permits to report in several parts of Beijing, the club said, and in Shanghai journalists had been asked to sign pledges not to film or photograph at the proposed protest site. No one knows who has made the calls for demonstrations, which were posted on an overseas website. Extensive censorship has ensured the vast majority of Chinese citizens are unaware of them and few of those who knew of earlier announcements showed any intention to protest. But authorities appear nervous following uprisings in the Middle East and have cracked down on dissidents and activists. The annual political meetings begin in Beijing this week and are always accompanied by intensified security. Pressed on Sunday's attacks on Wangfujing, a popular shopping street, the foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a regular briefing: "Many media organisations haven't encountered any trouble while reporting in China for many years. Why do some journalists always run into trouble? I find it strange. The journalists should really respect the laws and regulations." She added: "That place is a busy street, the flow of people is large and not a single thing was happening. Who did so many reporters receive a notice from [to attend]?" She said reporters had ignored police instructions to request permission before reporting there. But police rang only some journalists and some of those said they had been told only to obey reporting regulations. "The police provided reasonable guidance, and the journalists should understand and co-operate," Jiang said. "If both sides take this attitude, we can minimise the occurrence of such incidents." She said journalists should report assaults to the police. Regulations were relaxed ahead of the 2008 Olympic Games to allow reporters to work freely anywhere in China bar Tibet, where special permits are required. But in practice authorities have closed areas to the media when they consider them sensitive. In March 2008, reporters were barred from Tibetan areas in Sichuan as unrest spread. The government now seems to have put several areas of the capital off-limits to routine reporting, although Jiang said regulations had not changed. Local media are under far more pressure than overseas organisations. They are heavily censored and reporters have been fired for covering sensitive material. Bob Dietz, the Asia coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said Sunday's incidents were "the worst aggression against the foreign press we've seen since the Olympics in 2008. "Such a heavy-handed response discredits the ruling Chinese Communist party and highlights their fear of popular opposition," he said. The outgoing US ambassador, Jon Huntsman, has described the harassment and assault of journalists as "unacceptable and deeply disturbing", and the EU delegation in Beijing urged Chinese authorities to hold the perpetrators to account. China Press freedom Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Assange in 'Jewish conspiracy' row Posted: 01 Mar 2011 02:22 PM PST Ian Hislop writes in Private Eye that Assange accused him, the Guardian and Index on Censorship, before withdrawing claim Julian Assange has blamed a number of journalists for a "Jewish" conspiracy against his whistleblowing website, WikiLeaks, according to the editor of Private Eye, Ian Hislop. In the latest issue of the satirical magazine, Hislop writes that Assange called him on 16 February to complain about an article on Israel Shamir, a WikiLeaks associate in Russia who has denied the Holocaust and has published a string of antisemitic articles. "He said that I and Private Eye should be ashamed of ourselves for joining in the international conspiracy to smear WikiLeaks," Hislop writes. "The piece was an obvious attempt to deprive him and his organisation of Jewish support and donations, he said angrily, and he knew perfectly well who had written it. He then named a Fleet Street hack who had nothing to do with it." Hislop adds that Assange went on to claim that Private Eye was "part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship – all of whom 'are Jewish'". "I pointed out that Rusbridger is not actually Jewish, but Assange insisted that he was 'sort of Jewish' because he was related to David Leigh (they are brothers-in-law)," writes Hislop. "When I doubted whether his Jewish conspiracy would stand up against the facts, Assange suddenly conceded the point. 'Forget the Jewish thing'." Assange denied the allegations in a statement , saying: "Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word. "It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Mr Hislop has attempted, perhaps not surprisingly, to justify one smear with another in the same direction. "WikiLeaks promotes the ideal of "scientific journalism" – where the underlaying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely in order to avoid these type of distortions. We treasure our strong Jewish support and staff, just as we treasure the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share our hope for a just world." A judge ruled last week that Assange should be extradited to Sweden to answer accusations of rape and sexual assault, bringing to an close the first stage of what is still likely to be a lengthy legal battle. Assange, who has been fighting extradition since being arrested in Britain in December, must face interrogation in Sweden on the sex assault claims, ruled chief magistrate Howard Riddle, rejecting arguments that the prosecutor seeking his extradition had behaved illegally and was unqualified to issue a warrant, and that he would not receive a fair trial. His solicitor, Mark Stephens has insisted that he was "still hopeful that the matter will be resolved in this country. We still remain very optimistic about our opportunities on appeal." Julian Assange Private Eye Newspapers & magazines Magazines WikiLeaks Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

'It might have been so much more if it only had a heart' Posted: 01 Mar 2011 04:53 PM PST London Palladium The Victorian theatre of spectacle is alive and well, and residing at the London Palladium. But although this adaptation of the Frank Baum book and the 1939 movie, with additional songs by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, is quite an eyeful, it's somewhat lacking in humanity. I came out feeling blitzkrieged rather than charmed. The star of the show is undoubtedly the set and costume designer, Robert Jones. The Kansas cyclone that whisks Dorothy into a dreamworld is evoked through vorticist projections (the work of Jon Driscoll) that betoken chaos in the cosmos. The Yellow Brick Road is on a tilted revolve from inside which poppyfields and labyrinthine forest emerge. The Emerald City is full of steeply inclined walls suggesting a drunkard's vision of the Chrysler Building lobby. And the Wicked Witch of the West inhabits a rotating dungeon that might be a Piranesi nightmare. Not since 19th century Drury Lane melodramas can London have seen anything quite like it; one has to admire the director and co-adaptor, Jeremy Sams, for marshalling the effects. But the story and the people get swamped. Danielle Hope shows a natural, easy presence as Dorothy, but can't hope to compete with the scenery. Even Michael Crawford, playing both Professor Marvel and The Wizard, seems slightly subdued, and misses a trick by not highlighting the latter's resemblance to PT Barnum whom he once played. Only two of the cast transcend the spectacle. Hannah Waddingham makes the Wicked Witch a pointy-chinned ogre who at one point flies over the audience's heads with an elan that Spider Man might envy. David Ganly notches up a first by making the Cowardly Lion explicitly gay and announcing "I'm proud to be a friend of Dorothy." Of course, there are the songs; it's good to be reminded of such classics as Over The Rainbow, We're Off To See The Wizard, and Follow The Yellow Brick Road. The additions by Lloyd Webber and Rice are also perfectly acceptable. Dorothy is given a good plaintive opening number, and Red Shoes Blues, sung by the Wicked Witch, has a pounding intensity. But, as a film scholar remarked to me, the movie was a story with songs rather than a full-blown musical. That delicate balance has been changed, and an essentially simple fable about the importance of individual worth seems overblown. I suspect in the end the show will be critic-proof and people will go to see both the winner of the TV talent contest and to luxuriate in the sumptuous visuals. But the paradox of the evening is that it suffers the same dilemma as the Tin Man: it might have been so much more if it only had a heart. Rating: 3/5 Musicals Theatre Michael Billington guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Captain in a mink coat Posted: 01 Mar 2011 01:29 PM PST At the height of the turmoil in Egypt, 1,200 Pentagon staff went off to the theatre for a day. Director Nicolas Kent relives how he seduced the US military Three years ago, as yet another script about the war in Iraq crossed my desk, I became very aware that the story had moved on – but that the arts and, to some extent, the media had not. Afghanistan was going to be the challenge for western foreign policy for the next decade, yet in early 2008 there was not much reporting of it, and no artistic response to the war except for The Kite Runner. I knew little about Afghanistan, but was determined to find out more. After talking to playwrights, a plan evolved. The project became a day-long immersion, 12 half-hour plays interspersed with verbatim interviews from politicians, journalists and soldiers, taking the audience on a journey from the first Anglo-Afghan wars to independence; from the Russian invasion to the CIA arming of the Mujahideen; from the rise of the Taliban to Operation Enduring Freedom. In April 2009, The Great Game opened at the Tricycle theatre in London, and last year we revived the production and took it on a US tour. Before leaving for America, General Sir David Richards, then head of the British army, hosted a day-long performance for the British military. Taking to the stage, he said that, had he seen these plays before going to Afghanistan in 2005, they "would have made me a much better commander". He told me he would do his best to ensure that people from the Pentagon saw it. We opened in Washington in September, and the production was warmly welcomed, but our fortnight's run was ignored by the Pentagon and Capitol Hill – until a few days before its end, when a congresswoman was asked by General Petraeus, in Kabul, to send him a tape of the plays. Then, on the last Saturday performance, General "Mick" Nicholson came. He was incredibly enthusiastic and asked to meet the cast. He was about to be posted to Kabul as head of operations for Petraeus, and thought it vital that more people from the Pentagon saw the plays. Three weeks later, at 7.15 on a chilly October morning, I found myself standing outside the Pentagon, waiting for a military escort to take me to a meeting to discuss a special performance of The Great Game, to be hosted by the Pentagon. The original idea was to stage the plays in the Pentagon theatre – yes, it has a theatre, not to mention a drugstore, supermarket, a Blockbuster video store, and two shoeshine boys in its 17 miles of corridors. Sadly, the theatre was too small and, as it was located in the sub-basement, we couldn't have got our set down there anyway. What's more, it had taken me 20 minutes to penetrate security; the idea of getting the guns and explosives needed for the production through those doors seemed a challenge too far. The Shakespeare theatre in downtown Washington came to our rescue, offering to host the plays for two days last month. The Pentagon were adamant that, though they wanted the production, they couldn't use taxpayers' money to fund it. The next few weeks were spent frantically trying to raise money. Finally, Bob Woodruff, a US reporter who was injured in Afghanistan, came to our aid with a grant from his foundation; the British Council kindly helped with most of the rest. Captain in a mink coat On arrival at Dulles airport, we were amazed to be greeted by an immigration official who had seen the plays; he whisked us through the "US citizens only" line, and soon the whole company were having dinner in downtown Washington. The next two days were spent in a blur of rehearsals, amid a feeling of excitement. During one break, I was surprised to see a striking, tall blonde woman, in a full-length mink coat, leading a delegation of uniformed officers through the foyer. She turned out to be Navy Captain Roxie Merritt, until then just one of the 15 voices on our weekly Pentagon conference calls. In less than 48 hours, she was off to get married to a merchant banker on a Jamaican beach with a Rastafarian officiating. On the day of the first performance, I went into the foyer to watch the audience arriving: lots of uniforms, lots of braid, quite a few in camouflage fatigues, Pentagon staffers in suits, and people from USAid and policy groups. I had been told 1,200 people would be coming from the Pentagon during the two days; the Egypt crisis meant a few empty seats for the morning show, but by the evening they were filled. There was an extraordinary engagement and thirst for information. The audience hung on every word, every resonance: from the first play (about the 1842 Anglo-Afghan war, the worst defeat in the British army's history) chiming with a later one about Soviet invaders in the 1980s; to the last play, about a British sergeant coming back from Helmand and finding himself unable to re-adjust to family life. A marine colonel told me what a healing experience the day had been for the six marine captains he had brought along. They had all served in Afghanistan or Iraq, had all had trouble re-integrating, and were now all divorced. When the audience streamed out for lunch, the conversations were all about Afghanistan. "You hit the ball right of the park," said Douglas Wilson, the Pentagon's assistant secretary for public affairs. "This is absolutely wonderful." During the evening break, there was a crowded press conference. I was amazed to see such interest, until I realised how unprecedented these performances were: the Pentagon had never before sponsored a theatre show. I know Wilson had encountered fears the plays would be anti-war, and would deliver a counterproductive, negative message to a military audience; but he had always felt it was a "no-brainer", and responded to one question with the words: "There is an assumption that the arts and our men and women in uniform are from different planets. It's not the case. The arts can provide a means to discuss and explore and, in this case, learn about the history and culture of a very complicated country. It is tremendous food for thought." Then came the VIP reception. On our way there, Indhu Rubasingham, my co-director, and I were ambushed by reporters – she by a Japanese journalist, me by Icelandic TV. Somehow I couldn't help feeling that a British theatre director discussing the Afghan war in Washington might seem slightly incongruous to viewers in Reykjavik. The reception was packed with movers and shakers, along with at least three generals and a couple of admirals. General Busby welcomed the audience and stressed the importance of focusing on the conflict in Afghanistan. I noticed that the speakers, when talking about the conflict, had almost always replaced the word "winning" with "transitioning out". As we took our seats for the evening performances, I was greeted warmly by Masood Khalili, Afghanistan's ambassador to Madrid, who had flown in for the performance. Khalili had been a friend and adviser to Afghan hero Ahmad Massoud, who was killed by suicide bombers posing as TV journalists in 2001. The story of how Khalili, who had been interpreting, survived that attack was about to be told, and the actor playing him was nervous – although, from the huge hug he received afterwards, he shouldn't have worried. Some of the audience had joined for either the afternoon or the evening, not wishing to leave America "undefended for a day". Most were with us for over nine hours, and well over 100 stayed for coffee with the actors. Three marine captains, just back from Afghanistan, were in agreement: "It was irritating to see some empty seats during the morning – some Pentagon people could have used their time much better being here". An ex-CIA man said he could not believe so much history and culture could be crammed into one day. Someone from the senate committee on foreign relations was literally jumping up and down with excitement, while Lieutenant Colonel Luke Knittig, a veteran of two tours to Afghanistan, told me the plays "were extraordinarily important, and represented an amazing convergence of game-changing knowledge, interest and relationships". An emotional curtain call Perhaps the most moving words came from Colonel Piatt, who had spent over two years in Afghanistan: "I was taken on an emotional journey back to memories I had tucked away, some good, some not so good. I felt like I was sharing this journey with friends who shared the same hardships. It was as if Lady Sale herself [wife of the commander of the British defeat of 1842] was speaking directly to me, reassuring me that through this tragedy we must grow stronger, and accept our responsibility to heal ourselves and rebuild. History demands we do more." The next day's show should have been an anticlimax, but wasn't. This audience was very different: there seemed to be more servicemen, some diplomats, an ex-deputy director of the CIA, as well as Michèle Flournoy, tipped to be the next US secretary of defense. In the verbatim section, when the actors speak the words of General Sir David Richards, Hillary Clinton and a Taliban commander, you could have heard a pin drop – especially as the actor playing Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid said: "With the divisions, uncertainty and lack of clarity gripping the main decision-makers in Kabul, Washington and Europe, it becomes even more urgent that, before a pull-out of troops begins, there should be a political settlement with the Taliban. I met with several former Taliban leaders, who told me they want international safeguards to establish an office in a third country that is not Afghanistan or Pakistan, where they can negotiate directly with the Americans and the Kabul government." Twenty minutes later, when the curtain fell, the response was extraordinary. The actors were jubilant: they had given their best performance ever to their most responsive audience ever. The applause was subdued but sustained. And then, as the actors came out for the curtain call, every single audience member stood as one – in salute. Theatre US foreign policy Afghanistan Nicolas Kent guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Eminem and Arctic Monkeys at V Posted: 01 Mar 2011 10:17 AM PST Primal Scream and Dizzee Rascal top bill on second stage, and organisers plan ready-built yurts and pop-up hotel rooms Eminem and Arctic Monkeys will headline this summer's V festival, and Primal Scream and Dizzee Rascal will top the bill on the second stage. Other artists lined up for the festival, which takes place on 20 and 21 August in Chelmsford and Staffordshire, include Tinie Tempah, Rihanna, Jessie J, Plan B, Kaiser Chiefs, the Script, Razorlight, the Courteeners, the Wombats, Ellie Goulding, the Saturdays and N-Dubz. The festival director, Bob Angus, said he was proud of the breadth of talent performing throughout the weekend on the other stages. Organisers said they were trying to make the festival more luxurious this year by setting up ready-built yurts and pop-up hotel rooms for accommodation. Festivals Arctic Monkeys Eminem Primal Scream Dizzee Rascal Alexandra Topping guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

EU discards plan protects fishermen Posted: 01 Mar 2011 11:24 AM PST Throwing away thousands of tonnes of fish is unacceptable. At last the problem is getting a serious airing in Brussels Half of the fish caught in the North Sea today are thrown away, dead, because of an EU fisheries policy that is no longer fit for purpose. We can all agree that the system is broken – throwing away thousands of tonnes of edible fish is unacceptable. But on Tuesday we heard a bold proposal from the European commission that would aim to eliminate discards. It deserves a fair hearing. When we started our campaign against discards, I was surprised by the fantastic sign-up to our petition – 653,000 people so far. Discards are an emotive issue – people are appalled by images of fish being thrown back into the sea, dead and dying. Many of us had an inkling this was going on, but most didn't realise the scale of the problem – and people needed to know. When we brought it to public attention, I expected a good response, but in fact it was overwhelming. I would like to think it's hard to ignore more than half a million signatures. Now discards are at the heart of common fisheries policy reform, and that is where the issue needs to be. It's too early to talk of success, but I am thrilled the problem is getting a serious airing in Brussels. Maria Damanaki, the fisheries commissioner, has made a bold move, and I applaud that. Fishermen hate discarding – it is anathema to them, as they want to bring back their catch to sell for a fair price. Yet in some quarters, including representatives of the Scottish fleet, this proposal has been dismissed as a threat to fishermen's livelihoods. It was perhaps unfortunate that Scotland was not independently represented in Brussels. As it was, the whole of the UK was represented by Richard Benyon, the fisheries minister in Westminster. Some have been too quick to condemn the proposal. Understandably, fishermen fear there are going to be more restrictions on what they can do, and it will be harder to make a living. But when all fish caught are landed for sale, and none thrown away, that should provide for bigger quotas while still wasting less fish. I believe fishermen would like to work in waters where they are not obliged to discard fish. If they can still land a reasonable amount and take them to market, they should have no fear of compulsory landing. But the transition needs to be managed well. And perhaps anyone who thinks that a ban on discards is not the right way to go has an obligation to explain how to do it better. But the aim of our campaign was never to dictate policy in Brussels. We set out to show the extent of public outrage on discards, and force politicians to act on it. The Commissioner has made a bold move, but is just the beginning of the debate. I can only hope they come back with a new CFP that both eliminates discards and provides fishermen with a chance to make a living. Fishing Food Conservation Marine life European Union Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

St David's Day: recipes for a feast Posted: 01 Mar 2011 03:32 AM PST It's St David's Day, and to help celebrate we've a quintet of delicious recipes from Welsh chef Bryn Williams • Slow roasted shoulder of lamb • Mutton and swede pie • Pan-fried salmon with curried mussels • Sole in a bag with courgettes and black olives • Nain's bara brith Today is St David's Day, also known as the feast of St David, an opportunity to celebrate the food of Wales. What makes certain foodways identifiably Welsh is perhaps not immediately obvious, and a little digging is needed to unearth their origins. Most famously the hilly terrain of much of the country is suited to sheep farming, and the tradition of shepherding the animals to rich grazing on high ground in the summer and returning them to lowland pasture over winter, a lifestyle which favours a simple, portable kitchen and much one-pot cooking, persisted in Wales until relatively recently. Fertile valley bottoms also provide ample scope for growing cereal crops and grazing cattle and combined with the nearness of the sea these factors define a traditional cuisine rich in meat, milk and cheeses, porridges and stews, breads and seafood. This is reflected in the recipes we have on the site today, from Bryn William's new book Bryn's Kitchen, which contains 5 recipes for each of 20 great ingredients. Firstly, there are a couple of fish recipes - sole in a bag with courgettes and black olives (OK, so olives don't shout "Wales" but Welsh olives are in the pipeline) and pan-fried salmon with curried mussels which, as Bryn says in his introduction to the recipe, bring some traditional ingredients right up to date. We also have, how could we not, a couple of recipes involving those famous flocks: a slow roasted shoulder of lamb (and it is slow, a five or six hours in the oven renders this cheaper cut of lamb meltingly tender), and a mutton and swede pie which is a fantastic way to cook this flavoursome, dense meat. Finally, a Welsh treat, Bryn's Nain's bara brith, a recipe for "speckled bread" that's been in his family for 120 years. You don't have to be Welsh or part of the diaspora to celebrate St David's Day. Are you tempted to take inspiration from Welsh tradition this week? What might you cook? Food & drink Rick Peters guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Jimmy Wales Posted: 01 Mar 2011 10:45 AM PST Wikipedia, the site I run, has inspired in its 'wiki' structure the means to collaborate in the discovery of copy-and-paste cheats In recent weeks the world has watched popular protests topple dictators across the Middle East. These revolutions have been called "Twitter revolutions" or "Facebook revolutions", and although these claims are somewhat exaggerated, they are also not entirely fanciful. The truth is always more complex and more interesting than simple bromides can capture. It is worth taking a look beyond these contemporary events to see what else is going on. What other tools are people using to demand greater transparency, openness and honesty from institutions? How can you get involved, online and offline, with thoughtful people who are seeking to make a better world? The German defence minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg has announced his resignation after admitting that he had plagiarised parts of his PhD from the University of Bayreuth. Online tools played a big role in exposing his methods: for almost two weeks a group worked to identify the specific sections from his thesis that were lifted straight from other sources. When they realised that Google Docs – although a useful tool for small group collaboration – wasn't the right platform for mass participation in the project, they created a "wiki" (a site for collaborative works) named PlagiPedia to handle the effort. In just a few days the wiki went into overdrive: from no page views on 16 February to nearly 2m on 18 February. A university investigation – culminating in a decision described by Debora Weber–Wulff, a professor of media and computing at Berlin university, as the fastest by a German academic institution in 400 years – resulted in the revocation of Zu Guttenberg's doctorate. To date, the wiki has received 40,000 comments and 15,000 Facebook "likes", and there are 1,224 pages on it exploring the details of the accusations of plagiarism against him. Last week a second wiki was launched to explore whether Saif Gaddafi's PhD thesis from the London School of Economics included plagiarism. A few days later Britain's Media Standards Trust unveiled a website called churnalism.com which helps expose plagiarism in the media. By pasting press releases into a "churn engine" readers can discover the extent to which they have been recycled, verbatim, in online news articles. The internet is thought to have fostered a cut-and-paste culture of uncritical plagiarism: schoolteachers and university lecturers in particular regularly complain about coursework lifted straight off the site that I run, Wikipedia. But, if nothing else, sites like Plagipedia and churnalism.com show us that the internet is perfectly capable of correcting its own follies. Of course Saif Gaddafi is guilty of far worse than plagiarism. But his history with the LSE is a black mark for the institution, and in particular for the examiners, such as Lord Desai, who approved his thesis. We may be able to forgive them some aspects of this – plagiarism is sometimes notoriously difficult to detect, particularly when you have only a small committee of experts doing the examining. In the open-source software world we have a saying: "Many eyeballs make all bugs shallow." Similarly, many people working together to look for plagiarism can be dramatically more effective than only a few. What we can't forgive, though, is Lord Desai's cowardly response to the allegations. Desai, who was urges the LSE not to disown Saif Gaddafi, despite it all. "The man is evil enough – you don't have to add that he's a plagiarist as well," he says. Actually, yes we do need to add that, but not for what it says about him, but for what it says about the lack of institutional controls at the LSE and, perhaps, most other institutions. The opportunities for community action of a wiki kind are expanding daily, as more people become active online and as online activism matures beyond what has been quite properly derided as "clicktivism" – the fad of clicking on "like" for some cause, or sending out a single tweet and feeling as if you've done something. Some, like Malcolm Gladwell, have criticised the notion of "Twitter revolutions", saying lightweight networks of people who don't know each other aren't the beginning and end of activism, even if they have played some part. Gladwell has a point, but he overlooks the deeper networks coming together online. These are networks of people who know each other over a period of years, and not just online but in face-to-face meetings; networks of people who spend an enormous amount of time, as at Wikipedia, discussing, debating, learning, and passionately working to get things right. We won't know the full story of the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya for several years. But when we do, we will surely discover that although these revolutions came together at the speed of the internet, and that mobile phones, SMS, Facebook and Twitter were important tools for the organisation of the popular movements, there was also something much deeper going on. These revolutions were the product of thoughtful people, working together for a sustained period of time, finding friends, making plans, and supporting each other's hopes and dreams for the shared future. Internet Social media Plagiarism Social networking Twitter Facebook Middle East United States Wikipedia Jimmy Wales guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

To pee or not to pee? Posted: 01 Mar 2011 08:45 AM PST More shows than ever seem to be abandoning the half-way pause, and running straight through. To pee or not to pee? That is the question "Did you have a good interval?" asks a character in Michael Frayn's Look, Look. And, for some, an interval is the main justification for a night at the theatre: a chance to hobnob with friends, flirt with strangers or simply slake one's thirst. But Frayn's question is rendered redundant by recent shows such as Frankenstein at the National Theatre and Million Dollar Quartet in the West End, which don't have an interval and run straight through. That raises an old issue: do we really need intervals? I'd say there's no hard-and-fast rule. Some shows gain enormously from being played without pause. Try that with Long Day's Journey Into Night, however, and you'd soon have audiences crying "Give us a break!" Strangely enough, though, it's the classics that often gain most from being played uninterrupted. When I first saw Macbeth at Stratford in the 1950s, there were no fewer than two intervals. But when Trevor Nunn did the play straight through at the Other Place in 1976, the result was a revelation: you saw the immediate consequences of Macbeth's initial crime. Similarly, when Peter Hall did an interval-free Julius Caesar, an often fractured play acquired a rare stylistic unity. More controversially, the Almeida also recently played Ibsen's The Master Builder without break. And, while I wouldn't say this should be standard practice, the piece gained an unstoppable tragic momentum. With modern drama, the question acquires more urgency. From Strindberg onwards dramatists have realised the power of unbroken action. It's also fascinating to see how Beckett and Pinter moved from conventional two- and even three-act structures to plays such as Krapp's Last Tape and One for the Road which depend upon a dominant, developing image. But that doesn't mean it should be a golden rule. And, as I've said before, I'd like to see more young dramatists challenging the current fashion for the interval-free, 90-minute play. You can see the benefits in a piece such as Bruce Norris's Clybourne Park, in which the second act offers a brilliant reverse-image of the first. And, watching David Hare's Racing Demon in Sheffield recently, it was exhilarating to see how the play enriched and extended its themes in the second half. It even prompted a lively interval discussion amongst the critics about when any of us last went to church. Intervals also have a practical side. A friend bemoaned the lack of a comfort break in Frankenstein. And straight-through plays do raise a crucial physical issue. To pee or not to pee: that is the question. But, on the whole, I think we should take a pragmatic line on the subject of intervals. Some plays gain enormously from acquiring a propulsive force: others depend, structurally, on a break in the action. So let artists make up their own minds. The one thing I loathe is the typical, over-extended West End first-night interval which resembles nothing so much as an indoor garden party that looks as if it will never end. Theatre Michael Billington guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Richard Wolff Posted: 01 Mar 2011 08:10 AM PST The astonishing story of the last few decades is a massive redistribution of wealth, as the rich have shifted the tax burden Over the last half century, the richest Americans have shifted the burden of the federal individual income tax off themselves and onto everybody else. The three convenient and accurate Wikipedia graphs below show the details. The first graph compares the official tax rates paid by the top and bottom income earners. Note especially that from the end of the second world war into the early 1960s, the highest income earners paid a tax rate over 90% for many years. Today, the top earners pay a rate of only 35%. Note also how the gap between the rates paid by the richest and the poorest has narrowed. If we take into account the many loopholes the rich can and do use far more than the poor, the gap narrows even more. One conclusion is clear and obvious: the richest Americans have dramatically lowered their income tax burden since 1945, both absolutely and relative to the tax burdens of the middle income groups and the poor. Consider two further points based on this graph: first, if the highest income earners today were required to pay the same rate that they paid for many years after 1945, the federal government would need far lower deficits to support the private economy through its current crisis; and second, those tax-the-rich years after 1945 experienced far lower unemployment and far faster economic growth than we have had for years. The lower taxes the rich got for themselves are one reason why they have become so much richer over the last half century. Just as their tax rates started to come down from their 1960s heights, so their shares of the total national income began their rise. As the two other Wikipedia graphs below show, we have now returned to the extreme inequality of income that characterised the US a century ago. The graph above shows the portion/percentage of total national income taken by the top 1%, the top tenth of a percent, and the top 100th of a percent of individuals and families: the richest of the rich. The third graph compares what happened to the after-tax household incomes of Americans from 1979 to 2005 (adjusted for inflation). The bottom fifth of poorest citizens saw their income barely rise at all. The middle fifth of income earners saw their after-tax household income rise by less than 25%. Meanwhile, the top 1 % of households saw their after-tax household incomes rise by 175%. In simplest terms, the richest Americans have done by far the best over the last 30 years, they are more able to pay taxes today than they have been in many decades, and they are more able to pay than other Americans by a far wider margin. At a time of national economic crisis, especially, they can and should contribute far more in taxes. Instead, a rather vicious cycle has been at work for years. Reduced taxes on the rich leave them with more money to influence politicians and politics. Their influence wins them further tax reductions, which gives them still more money to put to political use. When the loss of tax revenue from the rich worsens already strained government budgets, the rich press politicians to cut public services and government jobs and not even debate a return to the higher taxes the rich used to pay. So it goes – from Washington, to Wisconsin, to New York City. How do the rich justify and excuse this record? They claim that they can invest the money they save from taxes and thereby create jobs, etc. But do they? In fact, cutting rich people's taxes is often very bad for the rest of us (beyond the worsening inequality and hobbled government it produces). Several examples show this. First, a good part of the money the rich save from taxes is then lent by them to the government (in the form of buying US Treasury securities for their personal investment portfolios). It would obviously be better for the government to tax the rich to maintain its expenditures, and thereby avoid deficits and debts. Then the government would not need to tax the rest of us to pay interest on those debts to the rich. Second, the richest Americans take the money they save from taxes and invest big parts of it in China, India and elsewhere. That often produces more jobs over there, fewer jobs here, and more imports of goods produced abroad. US dollars flow out to pay for those imports and so accumulate in the hands of foreign banks and foreign governments. They, in turn, lend from that wealth to the US government because it does not tax our rich, and so we get taxed to pay for the interest Washington has to give those foreign banks and governments. The largest single recipient of such interest payments today is the People's Republic of China. Third, the richest Americans take the money they don't pay in taxes and invest it in hedge funds and with stockbrokers to make profitable investments. These days, that often means speculating in oil and food, which drives up their prices, undermines economic recovery for the mass of Americans, and produces acute suffering around the globe. Those hedge funds and brokers likewise use part of the money rich people save from taxes to speculate in the US stock markets. That has recently driven stock prices higher: hence, the stock market recovery. And that mostly helps – you guessed it – the richest Americans who own most of the stocks. The one kind of significant wealth average Americans own, if they own any, is their individual home. And home values remain deeply depressed: no recovery there. Cutting the taxes on the rich in no way guarantees social benefits from what they may choose to do with their money. Indeed, their choices can worsen economic conditions for the mass of people. These days, that is exactly what they are doing. US taxation Public finance US economy Hedge funds Stock markets Equality Economic policy US politics United States Richard Wolff guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

How to be … a cookery show judge Posted: 01 Mar 2011 06:53 AM PST There's two approaches – you can become an authority in your field or eat from a large knife pretending you're a culinary Yoda So you want to be a TV cookery show judge. That makes sense; few things are as fun as trying a mouthful of food and then breaking the heart of whoever cooked it. The good news is that you're already perfectly qualified for the job – television has been secretly teaching you the necessary skills all along. Here's a quick refresher course. Intimidate To be a respected cookery show judge, it's important to be feared. How you make this happen is down to you. One method could be to build up decades of expertise and become one of the most authoritative voices in your field, such as The Great British Menu's Prue Leith. Another would be to just tie a manky old scarf around your head, eyeball people furiously, eat everything from the end of a needlessly large knife and speak in a series of faux-profound Yodaesque riddles that only succeed in making you sound like a badly concussed Jimmy Savile impersonator. It never did Marco Pierre White any harm, anyway. Remember The Wizard Of Oz A surprising number of cookery show judges have achieved greatness by pretending that there's an even harsher judge just around the corner. MasterChef's Monica Galetti is perfectly capable of terrifying contestants on her own, what with her constant air of barely contained outrage, but her secret weapon is her boss. Galetti constantly implies that Michel Roux Jr is a furious, fire-breathing monster with a palette so uniquely perfect that even one errant grain of salt would kill him. And then, when the contestants finally meet him and discover that he's actually quite a nice chap, Roux repeats exactly the same trick by using restaurant critics and other chefs as the unseen Big Bad. The moral here is to exploit the fear of the unknown whenever possible. And also that people are quite stupid. Exaggerate wildly A good cookery show judge never thinks that a dish is simply OK - it's either so amazing that they want to impregnate it behind their wife's back, or it's literally inedible. There's no inbetween. If one of Gordon Ramsay's American contestants serves up something slightly less than perfect, Ramsay spits it out in front of them like an awful wrinkly toddler. So why not invent a similar insulting reaction of your own? Perhaps nondescript food could make you burst into tears, or cause you to throw down your cutlery in disgust. Maybe you could even wish violent death upon the contestant's entire family. It's up to you. Use all of your senses Remember: eating isn't just restricted to the tastebuds. You can judge a dish just as well by looking at it, smelling it and touching it. Give Paul Hollywood from The Great British Bake Off a loaf of bread and he can run a full diagnostic on it – how much salt it contains, how long the dough was left to prove, the temperature of the water used – before it goes anywhere near his mouth. He's not alone, of course: Gregg Wallace can also expertly critique a dish on sight: a dish has what it takes if it's a) a pudding of some sort and b) has been cooked by a pretty girl in a low-cut top. Enjoy your work In theory, being a cookery show judge should be hellish. You spend all day shut in a room, being fed a never-ending stream of soggy dross served up by a procession of idiots who are there only to be on telly. In fact the judges are actually having a ball. When I dropped in on a Great British Bake Off audition in London last week, Hollywood seemed honestly overjoyed by the quality of food on offer, and Mary Berry kept insisting that she always wakes up in a good mood on audition day. Perhaps that's the most important quality when it comes to being a cookery show judge: you must love eating as much cake as you possibly can. Who knew? Life sometimes is really tough. Food TV Television Food & drink Chefs MasterChef Stuart Heritage guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

'Noxious' weed threatens Masai Mara Posted: 01 Mar 2011 06:00 AM PST Invasion of feverfew species from Central America threatens migration pasture and ecosystem of Masai Mara wildlife sanctuary No one knows how feverfew reached south-west Kenya. But the threat it poses led to a recent alert from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN) issued to the international scientific community: "The Serengeti – Masai Mara ecosystem in Africa, which hosts the largest wildlife migration known to man, is under attack from a noxious weed." Masai Mara, which runs along the border with Tanzania, is home to Africa's largest herbivore population. At the start of the annual rainy season, millions of wildebeest, gazelles, zebras and giraffes leave the Tanzanian savannah for the plains of Kenya in search of fresh pastures. A few months later, towards December, they circle back completing a round trip of several hundred kilometres. But what would happen if the weed, originally from Central America, colonised this wildlife sanctuary? Parthenium hysterophorus, commonly known as Santa Maria feverfew or whitetop weed, is one of the world's 10 most dangerous weeds. It can grow two metres tall. Until now it has only been seen on tracks crossing the wildlife reserve and on the shores of the river Mara, which flows through the Serengeti. "It is very hard to say how long it will take for the invasion to spread to the whole park, because that depends on many factors, in particular climatic conditions," says Arne Witt, Invasive Species Co-ordinator at the Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International (Cabi). "But the example of neighbouring Uganda shows that it may be very quick. The plant was first spotted three years ago and it is now seen all over the country. Bearing in mind that it can grow from seed to maturity in four to six weeks and can produce 10,000 to 25,000 seeds, contamination can happen very quickly," Witt adds. Unlike Central America, there are no predatory insects in Africa to thwart its spread. Scientists are all too familiar with the destruction wrought by feverfew, which has been on the red list of invasive species in Australia and India for decades. Feverfew pollen is also a skin irritant and causes respiratory difficulties. Its first landfall in Africa was in Ethiopia in the early 1980s. The most widespread, though unconfirmed, explanation is that the weed was imported with food aid to combat the famine then affecting the Horn of Africa. It then spread to Uganda, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Somalia and South Africa. "Unless action is taken immediately to eradicate known infestations in the Masai Mara National Reserve it is not unrealistic to expect a drastic reduction in wildlife populations in the long term," says Geoffrey Howard, at IUCN Kenya. "The animals won't eat feverfew, at least at first, but they won't have any alternative if they are starving." Witt's organisation, Cabi, has drawn up a plan to eradicate the species in conjunction with the Kenyan wildlife service, the public body that manages all the national parks. This involves several options. "Ideally we should mount a biological response – for example by introducing an insect predator – but that is extremely expensive. Another solution is to use weedkiller, but that wouldn't be too popular with the donors who fund our programmes," Witt admits. "So we will almost certainly be doing the work by hand, helped by local communities." The operation could be carried out in a few weeks, but that would only be the first step. "Feverfew seeds can lie dormant in the soil for several years before germinating, so it is essential to keep watch over the next five years," Witt explains. He reckons a monitoring programme would cost at least $65,000. It may seem a ridiculously small figure in view of the natural heritage at stake. But "for us it is a large amount of money and we will need outside support", says Dr Judith Nyunja of the wildlife service. The decision to implement the plan is now in the hands of the Kenyan authorities. This story originally appeared in Le Monde Invasive species Endangered habitats Biodiversity Kenya guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

You are subscribed to email updates from The Guardian World News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610