The Guardian World News

---

• Revealed: Gaddafi envoy in Britain for secret talks
• Ivory Coast near to toppling leader
• Ireland forced into new £21bn bailout
• Osborne urged to drop North Sea tax
• Census reveals 17% of world is Indian
• Phone hacking 'could be contempt'
• Japan pressed to widen no-go zone
• G4S to take over Birmingham prison
• Tomlinson 'was not confrontational'
• Man held over Stockwell shooting
• Buffett deputy denies insider trading
• Lorry boss Edward Stobart dies
• They used to eat your coins, now they sell you live crabs
• The royal moment has come
• Daughter wins fight to overturn will
• Ronald Dworkin: Lessons in morality
• My wife enjoyed a threesome
• Gary Remafedi
• Black bloc: 'Only actions count now'
• Early results from climate review
• ESPN to show BBC sports archive
• A green light for the redtops

Revealed: Gaddafi envoy in Britain for secret talks Posted: 31 Mar 2011 04:31 PM PDT Exclusive: Contact with senior aide believed to be one of a number between Libyan officials and west amid signs regime may be looking for exit strategy All today's developments in Libya Libyan fixer's visit to London may show sons want way out Those who have defected – and those who still support Gaddafi Colonel Gaddafi's regime has sent one of its most trusted envoys to London for confidential talks with British officials, the Guardian can reveal. Mohammed Ismail, a senior aide to Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam, visited London in recent days, British government sources familiar with the meeting have confirmed. The contacts with Ismail are believed to have been one of a number between Libyan officials and the west in the last fortnight, amid signs that the regime may be looking for an exit strategy. Disclosure of Ismail's visit comes in the immediate aftermath of the defection to Britain of Moussa Koussa, Libya's foreign minister and its former external intelligence head, who has been Britain's main conduit to the Gaddafi regime since the early 1990s. A team led by the British ambassador to Libya, Richard Northern, and MI6 officers embarked on a lengthy debriefing of Koussa at a safe house after he flew into Farnborough airport on Wednesday night from Tunisia. Government sources said the questioning would take time because Koussa's state of mind was "delicate" after he left his family in Libya. The Foreign Office has declined "to provide a running commentary" on contacts with Ismail or other regime officials. But news of the meeting comes amid mounting speculation that Gaddafi's sons, foremost among them Saif al-Islam, Saadi and Mutassim, are anxious to talk. "There has been increasing evidence recently that the sons want a way out," said a western diplomatic source. Although he has little public profile in Libya or internationally, Ismail is recognised by diplomats as being a key fixer and representative for Saif al-Islam. According to cables published by WikiLeaks, Ismail represented Libya's government in arms purchase negotiations and as an interlocutor on military and political issues. "The message that was delivered to him is that Gaddafi has to go, and that there will be accountability for crimes committed at the international criminal court," a Foreign Office spokesman told the Guardian , declining to elaborate on what else may have been discussed. Some aides working for Gaddafi's sons, however, have made it clear that it may be necessary to sideline their father and explore exit strategies to prevent the country descending into anarchy. One idea the sons have reportedly suggested – which the Guardian has been unable to corroborate – is that Gaddafi give up real power. Mutassim, presently the country's national security adviser, would become president of an interim national unity government which would include the opposition. It is an idea, however, unlikely to find support among the rebels or the international community who are demanding Gaddafi's removal. The revelation that contacts between Britain and a key Gaddafi loyalist had taken place came as David Cameron hailed the defection of Koussa as a sign the regime was crumbling. "It tells a compelling story of the desperation and the fear right at the very top of the crumbling and rotten Gaddafi regime," he said. Ministers regard Koussa's move to abandon his family as a sign of the magnitude of his decision. "Moussa Koussa is very worried about his family," one source said. "But he did this because he felt it was the best way of bringing down Gaddafi." Britain learned that Koussa wanted to defect when he made contact from Tunisia. He had made his way out of Libya in a convoy of cars after announcing he was going on a diplomatic mission to visit the new government in Tunis. It was also reported that Ali Abdussalam Treki, a senior Libyan diplomat, declined to take up his appointment by Gaddafi as UN ambassador, condemning the "spilling of blood". Officials were checking reports that Tarek Khalid Ibrahim, the deputy head of mission in London, is also defecting. The prime minister insisted that no deal had been struck with Koussa and that he would not be offered immunity from prosecution. "Let me be clear, Moussa Koussa is not being granted immunity. There is no deal of that kind," Cameron said. Within hours of his arrival in Britain, Scottish prosecutors asked to interview Koussa about the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The Crown Office in Edinburgh has said that it is formally asking for its prosecutors and police detectives to question him. But government sources indicated that Britain does not believe Koussa was involved. He was at the heart of Britain's rapprochement with Libya, which started when Tripoli abandoned its support for the IRA in the early 1990s. He was instrumental in persuading Gaddafi to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programme in 2003. One source said: "Nobody is saying this guy was a saint, because he was a key Gaddafi lieutenant who was kicked out of Britain in 1980 for making threats to kill Libyan dissidents. But this is the guy who persuaded Gaddafi to abandon his WMD programme. He no doubt has useful and interesting things to say about Lockerbie, but it doesn't seem he said 'go and do it'." However there is unease among Tories about Britain's involvement in Libya. Underlining those concerns, Boris Johnson, the London mayor, told BBC Question Time that a continued stalemate in Libya could "have terrible consequences". Johnson said; "I do worry that if we get into a stalemate; and if, frankly, the rebels don't seem to be making the progress that we would like, we have to be brave, to say to ourselves that our policy is not working, and encourage the Arabs themselves to take leadership in all of this." William Hague, the foreign secretary, said he had a sense that Koussa was deeply unhappy with Gaddafi when they spoke last Friday. "One of the things I gathered between the lines in my telephone calls with him, although he of course had to read out the scripts of the regime, was that he was very distressed and dissatisfied by the situation there," Hague said. Libya Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Muammar Gaddafi Foreign policy Peter Beaumont Nicholas Watt Severin Carrell guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Ivory Coast near to toppling leader Posted: 31 Mar 2011 12:04 PM PDT Laurent Gbagbo faces bloody overthrow as he loses general and rebels advance on main city of Abidjan Ivory Coast's president, Laurent Gbagbo, faces being overthrown after his top general deserted him and rebel forces advanced into Abidjan, his seat of power. Heavy weapons and machine gun fire were heard in the centre of Ivory Coast's main city. French troops were deployed as the four-month political crisis appeared to near its endgame, with the opposition claiming Gbagbo had only hours left in power. Presidential claimant Alassane Ouattara's government ordered the closure of Ivory Coast's land, air and sea borders, Reuters said. Ouattara's government previously ordered a curfew, and two sources said forces loyal to Gbagbo had ceded control of Abidjan's airport to UN peacekeepers. State television, which has remained loyal to Gbagbo, has gone off air following hours of fighting near its headquarters in Abidjan. Residents across the city said the broadcaster stopped transmitting at 10.45pm GMT after repeatedly showing images of Gbagbo and his close entourage. It was not immediately clear what caused the cut in transmission but forces loyal to Ouattara were fighting Gbagbo loyalists near the station's headquarters in the Abidjan neighbourhood of Cocody. Ivorian sources in South Africa reported rumours that Gbagbo could be about to step down, possibly turning to South Africa for a diplomatic channel to end his 10-year rule. Officials in Pretoria denied there had been an approach. The speculation was begun by the departure of Phillippe Mangou, Gbagbo's army chief of staff, to take refuge with his wife and five children at the South African ambassador's residence in Abidjan. "We've seen a regime collapse," said one western diplomat, who could hear gunfire from his residence. "The army is no longer an effective body. It has defected and deserted, and has no leadership now the general has gone into hiding." He added: "There's very little to keep Gbagbo in power and he must know it. I just hope he's not one of those men who fight to the death, because it will be a bloodbath." Rebels fighting to install Ouattara as president have swept hundreds of miles over three days. On Wednesday they took the official capital, Yamoussoukro, doing a victory lap in vehicles as people cheered and clapped, and the seaport, San Pedro. But aid workers estimated that the casualties ran into thousands. Ouattara is the internationally recognised winner of last November's election. He said the rebels will "re-establish democracy and enforce the choice of the people". There were reports of Gbagbo's troops downing weapons and uniforms, and in some cases going to join Ouattara at the UN-protected Golf hotel. Ouattara's prime minister, Guillaume Soro, told French radio that a government of national unity was still possible if Gbagbo stepped aside in the "coming hours", but otherwise it would be "winner takes it all". Later, Soro said that Gbagbo had only two or three hours left in power and that the "game is over". Officially there was defiance from Gbagbo, a Sorbonne-educated professor who in 2004 defended his inability to control rioting mobs by asking: "When the French were looking for Louis XVI to cut his head off, would it have been fair to ask him if he controlled the streets?" Members of Gbagbo's guard were deployed near the presidential palace in the Plateau area. Analysts say a core of 2,500 troops might be willing to fight to the end. A Gbagbo adviser, Toussaint Alain, suggested the president was prepared to make a last stand. "He will not resign in the wake of this attack," he told the Associated Press. "He is not going to abdicate. He is not going to lay down his arms. "He will stay in power to lead the resistance to this attack against Ivory Coast organised by France, the United States and the United Nations." Abidjan was a war zone on Thursday. The streets were deserted. Foreign nationals had been advised to stock up with five days of food and water. Salvatore Sagues of Amnesty International said Abidjan was "on the brink of a human rights catastrophe and total chaos. Cote d'Ivoire is facing a major humanitarian crisis. The international community must take immediate steps to protect civilians." Jacques Seurt, of the International Organisation for Migration in Ivory Coast, said: "You can't go out in Abidjan. We can hear shooting outside, close to a big military camp and the state TV station. There is no way to get out to reach a safe haven. It's too dangerous. I think the Forces Nouvelles [pro-Ouattara rebels] are coming into Abidjan. After the capture of the town, I'm afraid there will be a lot of looting." Reuters said soldiers from the 1,000-strong French Licorne force in Ivory Coast had been deployed in the south of the city. A western military source said others were sent to rescue French nationals attacked in the Deux Plateaux neighbourhood by youth supporters of Gbagbo. Rebels in control of several northern districts of the city attacked a prison and freed the inmates, a rebel commander said. The rebels also advanced into Yopougon, a district of Abidjan that fervently supports Gbagbo, according to witnesses. Advancing on foot, the rebels reportedly set up roadblocks on one of Yopougon's main thoroughfares and battled with police. In the predominantly pro-Ouattara Adjame district, several residents reported firing by pro-Gbagbo militiamen. A close aide to Ouattara said of the rebels: "They will enter the city on multiple fronts, from multiple directions." Overnight, the rebels also took Gbagbo's home town, the village of Mama, where the former president had a villa, the aide told AP. "The rebels slept in Gbagbo's bed," he added. At least 462 people have died and up to 1 million have fled their homes. The true figure is likely to be much higher. Pierre Kraehenbuehl, of the International Committee of the Red Cross, told a press conference in Geneva: "Casualty numbers, killed and injured, is running into the thousands. That is our indication." The rebels have controlled northern Ivory Coast since the 2002-03 civil war effectively split the country in two. Ivory Coast France United States United Nations David Smith guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Ireland forced into new £21bn bailout Posted: 31 Mar 2011 01:17 PM PDT Irish finance minister Michael Noonan said country had been left with an 'appalling legacy' as a result of the banking crisis Europe's debt crisis deepened on Thursday night as Ireland was forced into another €24bn (£21bn) rescue of its banking system and jittery financial markets pushed Portugal closer to a bailout. In a furious attack on the previous government, the Irish finance minister Michael Noonan said the country had been left with "an appalling legacy: a legacy of debt, of unemployment, of emigration, of falling living standards and of low morale" as a result of the banking crisis. After stress tests to assess the vulnerability of the banks to a drastic worsening of the economy, Noonan announced that the government would take a majority stake in all the major lenders. These are to be radically reduced in size and focused on just two players. Ireland's banks have been crippled by the bursting of a house price and commercial property bubble, created when they took advantage of the country's membership of the single currency to lend recklessly on low interest rates. The collapse caused an economic crisis that has seen output shrink for three years in a row. "We are now in the third year of the banking crisis. The previous government failed to act. They ducked and dived and procrastinated as they lurched from one crisis to the next. They went through periods of denial and periods of self justification. They paved the road to disaster with good intentions," Noonan said. "They never fixed the broken banks, however." Ireland's central bank governor, Patrick Honohan, said the country was saddled with "one of the costliest banking crises in history". The total bill has now reached €70bn – equal to €17,000 for each citizen. Analysts said that while Ireland's latest bank bailout had provided the country with breathing space, time was running out for Portugal, where the government admitted that it would miss its target for deficit reduction in 2010 and revised up its budget deficit figure from 7% of GDP to 8.6%. The poor figures triggered a fresh sell-off of Portuguese bonds and analysts said it would now be cheaper for the country to borrow from the International Monetary Fund and EU, as Ireland is doing, rather than access the international markets. Ireland pays 6% interest on its seven-year loans while bond investors want to charge Portugal 9% to borrow for just five years. As a result of the Irish and Greek bailouts, EU partners have now set up the European financial stability facility (EFSF) as a long-term provider of funds for troubled members of the eurozone. "The key question is when will Portugal need to access the EFSF because it has run out of money. Portugal faces two bond redemptions, one on 15 April (€4.3bn) and one on 15 June (€4.9bn). This week, a government official said that Portugal had sufficient reserves to cover both of these. It is hard to see how this can be the case," said Emilie Gay from the research consultants Capital Economics. However, Portugal's finance minister, Teixeira dos Santos, said: "The government is not irresponsible and will guarantee that there is the necessary financing so the country can live up to its responsibilities and honour commitments to its creditors." Lisbon said the change in its deficit figures was the result of an accounting change demanded by Europe's statistics agency but bond markets feared it was an effort to deceive investors about the true picture in the past. An auction of €1.5bn of bonds has been scheduled for Friday and will be a test for the market. As a result of the announcement in Dublin, all the Irish banks are now likely to be state-owned. Two new universal banks are expected to be created from existing institutions – Bank of Ireland will remain while Allied Irish Banks and building society EBS are to be merged. "We will also ensure that they are fully recapitalised so that the world looks at these core banks with confidence and they in turn help instil confidence in our economy," said Noonan. The extra bailout cash is within the funding from the EU/IMF support announced last year. Noonan blamed the crisis on the decision made in September 2008 by the former Fianna Fáil government to guarantee the banking sector, and particularly Anglo Irish Bank, during the international banking crisis. Ireland Ireland bailout European debt crisis Euro Currencies Europe Larry Elliott Jill Treanor guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Osborne urged to drop North Sea tax Posted: 31 Mar 2011 11:55 AM PDT Chancellor under pressure from cabinet to abandon plans to impose a £2bn levy on the region's oil and gas companies George Osborne, the chancellor, is under pressure from within his cabinet to back down on his unexpected plans to impose a £2bn windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas companies. Fellow ministers are frustrated that they were given no long-term warning by the Treasury of the plan in advance of the budget and that the oil companies were given no chance to be consulted. It is also being argued that the sudden change in the tax regime ran counter to a series of pledges Osborne gave to the North Sea oil industry in opposition. He told the Aberdeen Press and Journal in 2009 that one of his earliest budget commitments would be to set up a parliament-long stable tax regime for the oil industry. The Treasury minister Justine Greening went to a bruising meeting with oil companies attended by other government ministers in which she was told that the industry has lost trust in government promises to maintain a stable tax regime in the North Sea. One witness said she was "grilled alive". At a meeting described as cold and pointed, attended by the Scottish secretary, Michael Moore, and the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, she was told she had put 40,000 jobs at risk. Greening was told by oil companies including Total and Shell that Statoil was suspending a $10bn (£6.2bn) project at the Bressay and Mariner oil fields – two of the most valuable deposits left in the North Sea – to review whether the investment is still worthwhile. The oil companies said they were responsible for a quarter of private sector capital investment in the UK, and were quite prepared to pull the plug on a large part of this investment unless the tax regime were changed. They pointed out that as reserves are slowly depleted, companies need better incentives to pump the remaining, harder-to-reach resources. There were also claims that senior cabinet ministers with a direct involvement in the industry were not informed more than 48 hours before the budget of the plan to make the tax raid on the profits of the oil industry. Late representations were made in an attempt to introduce some flexibility based on the price of oil, and ministers opposed to the rise are urging the Treasury to raise the price at which the higher tax kicks in. Supporters of the chancellor claim the principles were discussed between the Treasury chief secretary, Danny Alexander, the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, Osborne and David Cameron. Last Wednesday's budget increased by 12 percentage points the tax levied on North Sea companies, on top of corporation tax, in order to raise £2bn a year to pay for a 1p reduction in the duty on petrol and diesel and scrap a further 5p increase due under plans agreed by the last government. The oil and gas industry's tax bill for the next financial year is expected to be £13.4bn, compared with £8.8bn this year. In a sign of the problems developing over the issue, Alexander who represents a Scottish constituency, denied the tax raid had been his idea. "We don't expect this tax change to have a significant effect on production and investment and therefore on jobs in the coming years," he said. The Scottish National party has already described the oil grab as Alexander's political epitaph, but what will worry him more is the lack of support from key cabinet allies and normally loyal Scottish Liberal Democrat MPs, such as Malcolm Bruce. Bruce accused Alexander of being "economically illiterate for coming up with a "populist move" that could kill off investment in the North Sea. George Osborne Tax and spending Oil and gas companies Energy industry Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Census reveals 17% of world is Indian Posted: 31 Mar 2011 11:30 AM PDT Country closing gap with China by adding 181 million citizens in past decade – which is equivalent to population of Brazil The first results from India's latest census – the second biggest in the world – were released on Thursday, revealing that the country has added 181 million new citizens in the last decade, making it home to 17% of the world's population. China remains the most populous country on the planet, with 1.34 billion, but India is closing the gap with 1.21 billion. The additional Indians found by the census are roughly equivalent to the population of Brazil, the fifth largest country in the world. One Indian state alone – Uttar Pradesh – now has a population of 199,500,000 people, just under that of Britain, France and Germany combined. However C Chandramouli, the census commissioner, told reporters in Delhi that the new count showed population growth in India had slowed. The 17.6% increase was down from 21.5% recorded in 2001. Though Indian economists and politicians talk frequently of the "demographic dividend" from the hundreds of millions of young people in their country, there is fear that overpopulation is placing a huge strain on poor social services and infrastructure. The first modern census in India was conducted under British rule in 1872. Since then, Indian census officials have gone forth more or less every decade and counted how their countrymen have multiplied. The most recent exercise involved 2.3 million "enumerators" travelling to more than 630,000 villages and more than 5,000 cities, logging how many people live in any one place, establishing identities and ages, and noting details such as whether a household has air conditioning, a car, a computer, phones and internet access, as well as basics such as water and power. The controversial question of caste, the ancient hierarchy rooted in the Hindu religion which permeates all parts of Indian society, has been left to a separate census. Care was taken to include the homeless, with enumerators, who are often schoolteachers, scouring streets and railway stations to arrive at an accurate count. The Indian media made much of the inclusion of even Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani national who is the only surviving member of the group of terrorists who launched the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, and who is on death row. Though there is good news – a rise in literacy of nine points to 74% for Indians aged seven and older – there is also bad news. The figures indicate a continuing preference for male children over females in a country where female infanticide is still common and the government has been forced to ban doctors from revealing the sex of unborn children. This is particularly marked in the north, even in more prosperous states such as Haryana. Some experts attribute this to the availability of new, cheap ultrasound scans which allow parents to easily determine the gender of child, others to families deciding to have fewer children and wanting to ensure a son. The breakdown showed 914 girls being born or surviving for every 1,000 boys under the age of six, compared with 927 for every 1,000 in the last census. "This is a matter of grave concern," said Chandramouli. Efforts to stop female infanticide and foeticide have largely failed. "Whatever measures that have been put in over the last 40 years has not had any impact on child sex ratio and therefore that requires a complete review," G.K. Pillai, India's Home Secretary, told reporters. The overall gender ratio showed a marginal improvement, with 940 women counted for every 1,000 men, compared with 933 in the last census. The southern state of Kerala, which has long enjoyed high literacy rates for men and women, had the healthiest sex ratio in the country, the census has found. One of the most difficult facts to establish has been age of Indians, officials involved with the count told the Guardian. Few among the poor know their date of birth, which nonetheless has to be established so that they can all be issued with the biometric identity card which is a key part of new government programmes to broaden and improve access to India's vast but inefficient welfare schemes. To help find ages, the enumerators were given a "local event calendar" listing significant dates which respondents would remember. The calendar in use around Delhi – every region has its own – starts in 1905 and includes India's independence in 1947, the assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 and Mother Teresa's death in 1997. There is also the Indian victory over the West Indies to win the 1983 cricket World Cup. India Jason Burke guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Phone hacking 'could be contempt' Posted: 31 Mar 2011 06:46 AM PDT Select committee also says MPs who believe they are victims of phone hacking should pursue the matter in court A powerful committee of MPs said on Thursday that hacking mobile phones belonging to members of the House of Commons could amount to contempt of parliament. A report on phone hacking published by the select committee on standards and privileges concluded hacking could be in contempt, "if it can be shown to have interfered with the work of the house or to have impeded or obstructed an MP from taking part in such work". That might result in fines being levied in exceptional circumstances, MPs said. The committee added that in the vast majority of cases MPs who believe they have been victims of phone hacking should pursue the matter through the courts. Former culture secretary Tessa Jowell is one of more than half a dozen public figures who are suing either the Metropolitan police or the News of the World for breach of privacy, alleging journalists on the paper worked with a private investigator to illegally access their mobile phone messages. Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for Rhondda, has said "at least eight" MPs had their mobile phone voicemails hacked by the paper. MPs passed a motion tabled by Bryant in September asking the cross-party committee to urgently consider whether hacking could be considered to be in contempt of parliament. In their report, MPs said it was not within the committee's remit to consider the law surrounding hacking, which is currently the subject of a separate inquiry being carried out by the home affairs select committee. But it said that if it was proved that hacking "impede[d] a member in the performance of his or her duty ... there would be little if any room for doubt that hacking could be a contempt". It added that the house did not have the power or resources to investigate hacking and that this was a matter for the police. Members should notify the police if they suspected an offence had taken place, it said. MPs recommended that a privileges bill due to go through parliament later this year should include a description of what constitutes contempt, which is currently not clearly defined. The committee also said parliament's power of imprisonment should be removed in the bill but it should retain the right to reprimand offenders in person and levy fines. "The imposition of a fine, where justified by the facts and by the circumstances, is more consistent with modern practice and would be more likely to be proportionate to an offence such as hacking". • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication". • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers News of the World News International Tessa Jowell House of Commons House of Lords James Robinson guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Japan pressed to widen no-go zone Posted: 31 Mar 2011 01:16 AM PDT • High levels of radiation detected outside current 20km zone • Prime minister plans to review nuclear energy policy • Concerns over water contaminated by reactor cooling operation Pressure is mounting on Japan to expand the evacuation zone around the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, as the prime minister says he plans to review the country's nuclear energy policy. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Japanese authorities should consider expanding the zone beyond its current 20km (12-mile) radius after high levels of radiation were detected at a village about twice that distance from the plant. The government has so far resisted calls to evacuate more people from the area, but said its policy was under constant review, and that monitoring of radiation levels was being increased. More than 70,000 people living inside the 20km zone have been evacuated, but another 136,000 living between 20-30km away have been told to stay in their homes. The US has recommended that its citizens stay at least 80km away. Some have taken government advice to leave voluntarily, but many others have spent almost three weeks living in an area with few supplies and services, their plight compounded by rising radiation levels and speculation that stabilising Fukushima Daiichi could take months. Radiation fears have prevented authorities from collecting the bodies of as many as 1,000 people living in the evacuation zone who died in the 11 March earthquake and tsunami. Kyodo news agency cited police sources as saying the corpses had been exposed to high radiation levels and would probably have to be decontaminated before they could be collected and examined by doctors. Left as they were, the bodies could pose a health threat to relatives identifying them at morgues, the agency said. Cremating them could create radioactive smoke, while burying them could contaminate soil. The IAEA said measurements taken at Iitate, 40km from the plant, were above the level at which the United Nations body normally orders evacuations. Earlier this week, Greenpeace issued a similar warning after recording high levels of radiation in the village. "We have advised [Japanese officials] to carefully assess the situation, and they have indicated that it is already under assessment," Denis Flory, a senior IAEA official, said in Vienna. "The highest values were found in a relatively small area in the north-west from the Fukushima power plant and the first assessment indicates that one of the IAEA operational criteria for evacuation is exceeded in Iitate village." The agency said its latest readings were conducted over a wide area from 18-26 March, and that the samples contained radioactive iodine-131 and caesium-137. But the chief government spokesman, Yukio Edano, said the evacuation zone would stay unchanged for the time being. "At the moment, we have no reason to believe that the radiation will have an effect on people's health," he said. "We need to step up our monitoring, and if necessary take steps to deal with it." Media reported that 140 members of a US military team specialising in radiation control would arrive soon to help deal with the crisis. Nuclear safety officials said rising contamination in the sea near the plant pointed to a constant leak of radiation. On Thursday, Japan's nuclear and industrial safety agency said radioactive iodine near drains running from the plant was 4,385 times higher than the legal limit. Experts said workers at the plant, 240km north of Tokyo, faced the problematic task of cooling overheating reactors with seawater while ensuring that contaminated runoff does not end up in the surrounding sea and soil. "There's definitely a conflict now between trying to keep the reactors cool and managing the contaminated waste water being generated by the operation," said Ed Lyman, of the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists. The deepening of the crisis exposed a dispute between the government and the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power company about the plant's future. The firm has said four of the six reactors are beyond repair, but that two could function again. The prime minister, Nato Kan, however, said the entire plant should be decommissioned. Kyodo reported that Kan is to order a review of plans to increase Japan's dependence on nuclear energy from 30% to 50% by 2030. With public confidence in the industry severely dented by the Fukushima emergency, few communities are expected to grant approval for the construction of 14 atomic power plants over the next 20 years. Japan disaster Nuclear power Japan Natural disasters and extreme weather Energy Justin McCurry guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

G4S to take over Birmingham prison Posted: 31 Mar 2011 11:49 AM PDT • Prison officers meet to consider defying strike ban • G4S also to run 'super-size' jail in £750m contracts win The military has been put on standby as the prison service braces itself for a day of industrial disruption over the first privatisation of an existing British jail. The Prison Officers' Association has instructed branches at prisons throughout Britain to hold lunchtime meetings to discuss their mandate to take industrial action in protest, despite a strike ban. More than 250 staff at Birmingham prison, which is to be run by private security company G4S from October, walked out when the decision was announced on Wednesday. They returned to work in the afternoon. Officials told staff to turn up as normal on Friday for a branch gate meeting. The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, said soldiers had been put on standby and told MPs: "If people are so unwise as to take industrial action in prisons, the situation can rapidly become far worse than in a normal strike because we start getting disorder among the prisoners." Governors said the "unprecedented decision" would have a resounding effect on the prison service. The POA's general secretary, Steve Gillan, said: "We will not make a kneejerk reaction. We will study what we can do and take direction from our members, but we will not rule out industrial action. The NEC have a strategy and this will be enacted in the forthcoming days." He said that it was for a judge, not ministers or managers, to determine what was illegal industrial action. Clarke told MPs that after a tendering process begun in 2009 under Jack Straw, then Labour justice minister, G4S were to take over the 1,450-place Victorian prison at Winson Green, Birmingham from October on a 14-year contract. They are also to run a "super-size" 1,600-place prison, Featherstone 2, on the same site as Featherstone prison, Wolverhampton. G4S said the two contracts were worth £750m over their lifetime. A third prison, Buckley Hall at Rochdale, is to remain in the public sector while Serco, a rival to G4S, retained the contract for Doncaster prison with a 10% "payment by results" element. There are 11 privately run prisons in England and Wales. The first, the Wolds in East Yorkshire, opened shortly before Clarke became home secretary in 1992. All were newly built and no publicly run jail has yet transferred to the private sector. The unions fear more of the 140 prisons in England and Wales will follow and the justice secretary strongly hinted at further rounds of competitive tendering. The decision to train up to 3,000 soldiers in control and restraint techniques and in running prisons was made after ministers studied what happened when the POA went on strike in August 2007. It was 12 hours before a high court injunction halted the action. It happened while Labour had suspended the legal ban on industrial action by prison officers. A reserve power re-imposing the ban was introduced in 2008. Clarke said the army had not been sent into jails "within living memory" but training of troops, which Labour suspended, had resumed. This is insufficient to cover a national strike but might be enough to run a handful of prisons shut down by the strongest POA branches. The justice secretary said a high-quality public sector bid had been received for Birmingham but the G4S bid was better and cheaper. He could not rule out redundancies among the 750 staff but said there would be jobs at Featherstone 2.G4S said the two contracts were worth £750m over their lifetime. They now have six of the 13 private prisons in England and Wales. Prisons and probation UK criminal justice Kenneth Clarke Trade unions G4S Serco G4S Alan Travis guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Tomlinson 'was not confrontational' Posted: 31 Mar 2011 09:02 AM PDT Christopher La Jaunie, who shot film of PC Simon Harwood shoving newspaper vendor to ground, gives evidence Ian Tomlinson was "not confrontational at all" when he was "violently shoved" by a police officer at the London G20 protests, the man who filmed the incident told an inquest. Christopher La Jaunie, from New York, on Thursday said he was in the City for a conference and decided to take a colleague to watch the protests. Once the police brought dogs out on the streets he took out a compact digital camera and commenced filming. La Jaunie later passed his film to The Guardian, casting doubt on earlier police claims that Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper vendor, who died within an hour of being struck by a police baton and pushed to the ground, had suffered a heart attack unrelated to his treatment. La Jaunie told Alison Hewitt, counsel to the inquest, that he was about 10ft from the police "frontline" when tension began rising shortly after 6.30pm on 1 April 2009. "There was a bit of a frontline with the police and protestors. One protester had obviously had some kind of altercation, he was bleeding from the head and so I went to see what was going on." He said that police started kettling the protesters towards the Royal Exchange building in Cornhill after bottles were thrown. "Once the police had brought the dogs out there was certainly more an air of fear and people started to back away from that line. A few people dared to go close and I saw Mr Tomlinson just sort of wandering very close to that line. He was obviously trying to get through. That's what caught my attention. "It looked to me as if he was trying to get through. They let a few people through but once they cut the line off no one could get through. "My impression of him was that he certainly was not involved in what was going on, he was not a protester. He was caught in the crowd and just wanted to get somewhere." Asked about his impression of Tomlinson, he said: "He was moving slowly but nothing more than that. "I am not sure he was really engaged with the protests itself. I think he was more determined to just be on his way. Anyone who got too close to the line I think risked some type of action by the police. "Mr Tomlinson piqued my interest because he was getting very close to the police and they did not look accommodating to someone approaching them. "He was facing the police and basically trying to negotiate, like he was just trying to get there and being turned away. Just by hand gestures it looked like he was trying to explain to them, 'I need to get over here' and then was obviously refused." Asked again about Tomlinson's demeanour by Hewitt, La Jaune replied: "So you are asking me if I thought he was intoxicated? No, not particularly. "He was not confrontational at all, he had his hands in his pockets, it was clear now he wasn't going to get through so he turned his back to walk away. "Once his back was turned, I mean a push is a very polite term. He was rather violently shoved. His hands were in his pockets so when he flew forward he was unable to break his fall." Describing the film he was shooting he said: "His head goes out of the frame but I saw it. He hit the ground, his head hit the ground." La Jaune said he saw the police officer responsible "with no badge and a balaclava and riot gear. I saw who it was, I couldn't see his face". He added that he saw the officer pull out a baton, which he used to strike Tomlinson before shoving him. Although the officer had his baton out, from where he was standing he "mostly saw the shove". And he admitted that he was afraid to draw attention to himself by focussing on the officer with his camera in case "he would come after me". La Jaune said Tomlinson "eventually sat up and someone came to his aid and from what I could tell … he appeared to ask 'Why did you do that?' The police didn't respond and he eventually got up and stumbled away." Shortly after, La Jaune saw a man lying on the pavement some distance away. "It was further up Cornhill, don't remember, it was quite chaotic. I saw him lying there on his back. He looked very unwell, somewhat ashen, he looked like he was about to pass out." La Jaune said it was clear to him that it was the same man he had filmed. La Jaunie said that the following day, after he became aware a man had died, "it seemed the only likely candidate could have been Mr Tomlinson". From New York he began contacting journalists. "I basically contacted every reporter who followed the story by email to say 'I have something that may be of interest to you' because, as you know, the story that had come out was that he had just died of natural causes completely unrelated to this." He said that in his opinion "[my own] footage was contradicting the story". In his opinion the force used by the police officer against Tomlinson was excessive and it was quite obvious he was not a protester. "He just looked like he was actually sort of lost in the crowd and trying to get somewhere." Matthew Ryder QC, counsel for the Tomlinson family, asked La Jaunie: "From his behaviour was there anything that you could perceive that seemed in any way threatening or confrontational about his demeanour at all?" "No," La Jaunie repied. Patrick Gibbs QC, counsel for PC Harwood, read La Jaunie's statement taken for the Independent Police Complaints Commission in May 2009. In it, La Jaunie said of Tomlinson: "He looked disorientated and I got the impression he was intoxicated. He approached the police line and bumped along trying to get through. "I couldn't understand why Mr Tomlinson was getting so close to the police line, I thought they would see this as some kind of a threat." La Jaunie explained to the inquest that he had formed this view because "the rest of the crowd was moving away from the line and one person was moving towards the line". In his statement Mr La Jaunie said: "I think he managed to break some of his fall but I believe he may have hit his head when he went down. He rolled over and sat up quickly." He confirmed to the inquest this was correct. Mr Gibbs continued reading from the statement: "It all happened very quickly. I don't think many people saw it and nobody challeneged the police about it. It wasn't an uncommon occurrence. Other people had been pushed over or hit with batons when they tried to push through the police shields. This did not seem unreasonable to keep them back." Asked at the inquest if he had seen other instances of violence that day, La Jaunie replied: "I think if you approach a police officer and you throw a bottle at him he will respond accordingly. But there is a difference between lunging towards the police line and moving away from the police line, which Mr Tomlinson was doing." In reply to a question from Ryder about his statement, La Jaunie confirmed that "I had the impression that the officer was making an example of him". Harwood recognised himself on the footage shot by La Jaunie a week later when it was broadcast on television, his colleague PC Alex Jackaman told the inquest. Jackaman said he was sitting with PC Harwood in the team room at Catford police station, south London, filling in paperwork when the television news showed Tomlinson being knocked down. "PC Harwood was sitting next to me and his reaction was 'My God that's me.' I thought he was joking. I said something along the lines of 'It couldn't have been you, you were with me and PC Hayes that day and we were nowhere near a dog unit or a dog serial.' "And then he said 'No that is me' in a serious voice and the way he said it, I could tell that, you know, he was telling the truth, it was him." Tomlinson died after being struck with a baton and pushed to the ground by Metropolitan police officer Pc Simon Harwood in the City of London at around 7.20pm on 1 April 2009. Earlier, PC Andrew Hayes, who was working alongside PC Harwood as a carrier driver in the Territorial Support Group on the day, told the inquest that PC Harwood had not told him about striking and pushing Tomlinson when they were writing up their notes on the day's events. Matthew Ryder QC, counsel for Tomlinson's family, asked Hayes: "Did he at any time tell you that he had made baton strikes on what appeared to be a middle-aged man?" Hayes replied: "No." "Did he at any time tell you that he had pushed a man to the floor?" "No." "Or that the man had been helped by a younger person, or anything of that kind?" "No." The inquest continues. Ian Tomlinson Police David Sharrock guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Man held over Stockwell shooting Posted: 31 Mar 2011 12:03 PM PDT Detectives question 19-year-old as five-year-old Thusha Kamaleswaran remains in critical condition A man has been arrested in connection with the shooting of a five-year-old girl critically wounded in the crossfire of a suspected botched assassination attempt. The 19-year-old was detained in south London on Thursday afternoon following the shooting in a shop in Stockwell on Wednesday in which Thursha Kamaleswaran and another bystander were injured. Scotland Yard said the man is being questioned at a south London police station. Thusha is critical but stable in hospital after a bullet struck her in the chest as she visited relatives who ran the Stockwell Food and Wine shop in Lambeth, south London. Even in a borough that has suffered a high degree of teenage gang related violence, the gunning down of an innocent child has caused great shock. A reward of £50,000 has been offered for information leading to an arrest and conviction of those behind the shooting. It happened after three youths on bicycles chased two others, who fled into the shop. Shots were then fired, injuring the girl and a 35-year-old man, Roshan Selvakumar, who was shot in the face. He is recovering in hospital. One of the two youths believed to be the intended target of the teenagers on bicycles has now contacted police. A police source said: "He's probably realised he'll be safer with us." Detective Chief Inspector Tony Boughton, leading the inquiry, said: "One of the youths who first ran into the shop has come forward and is assisting us with our inquiries. We are still trying to trace the other individual and appeal to him to come forward." The youths behind the shooting are believed to have continued cycling around the area for up to 45 minutes after gunning down the innocent pair. Thusha was visiting relatives at the shop along with her mother, sister, three, and brother, 12, who were unhurt. Detectives are studying CCTV from neighbouring shops and streets to build up a picture of what happened before, during and after the shooting. In a statement, police said: "One of these youths had been chased from Broomgrove Road, across Stockwell Road, and into the shop by three other males, described as black youths, on bicycles. Once the youths on bikes were outside the shop, one of them fired shots into the shop front." The shootings are being investigated by the Metropolitan police's Trident unit, which specialises in tackling gun crime, particularly in London's African-Caribbean communities. Claudia Webbe, chair of Trident independent advisory group, said: "Although incidents like this are isolated, they have a huge impact locally. This is a societal problem; once the bullet has been fired, it affects us all. The whole community is united in bringing these violent and cowardly criminals to justice." Gail Brannan, headteacher of Fairlop primary school in Ilford, which the injured child attended, said: "Thusha is a cheerful girl who loves school and involves herself happily in everything. Our thoughts are with her and her family and we hope that she makes a full recovery soon." Gun crime Crime London Gangs Communities Young people Vikram Dodd guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Buffett deputy denies insider trading Posted: 31 Mar 2011 06:52 AM PDT After shock resignation from Berkshire Hathaway empire, David Sokol says he did nothing wrong in buying stake in Lubrizol oil company David Sokol, once seen as the favoured successor to Warren Buffett, has rejected claims of insider trading and defended his purchase of shares in a company shortly before it was bought by the billionaire. Speaking for the first time since his shock resignation from the Berkshire Hathaway empire was announced on Wednesday night, Sokol insisted he had behaved legally and honourably. Sokol told CNBC he had no influence over which companies Buffett invested in and that his decision to quit Berkshire was unrelated to his stake in Lubrizol. "I don't believe I did anything wrong," Sokol told CNBC. "I made an investment that I believed in. If I didn't believe in the company, I wouldn't have invested in it." Sokol told CNBC he had been contacted by bankers from Citigroup on 13 December last year. They suggested a number of potential acquisition targets including Lubrizol. Sokol concluded that Lubrizol was the most attractive and asked the bankers to set up a meeting between himself and chief executive James Hambrick. Sokol then attempted to buy 50,000 shares in the company, but only managed to acquire 2,300, which he sold shortly afterwards. In early January, he bought another 96,000 shares at about $104 (£65) each. According to Buffett, Sokol suggested buying Lubrizol on 14 or 15 January. The $9.7bn deal was announced on 14 March after Berkshire's $135-per-share offer was accepted, giving Sokol a paper profit of almost $3m. Sokol acknowledged the Lubrizol stake did raise questions. "I can understand the appearance issue and that's why we decided to make it public." he said. The stake would eventually have been revealed under regulatory filings. During the TV interview, which was eagerly watched on Wall Street and in the City, Sokol explained he had no influence over whether Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway would decide to bid for a company. "I don't think there was any impropriety," he insisted. "I didn't have any inside information. "The reality is that I didn't think there was a 5% chance of Warren being interested in the company." Sokol, who chaired several Berkshire subsidiaries, including the corporate airline NetJets, said he had not been contacted by the Securities and Exchange Commission over his share dealings. He also told CNBC that Charlie Munger, another of Buffett's top lieutenants, had owned 3% of Chinese carmaker BYD before asking Sokol to examine teaming up with it. Berkshire bought 10% of BYD in September 2008. Questioned about the timing of his departure, Sokol said the team at NetJets could run the airline without him and that, by departing now, it would help the usual discussions about Buffett's succession at Berkshire's annual meeting at the end of April. Looking ahead, Sokol said he was keen to set up and run his own fund. He was also ebullient in his praise for the company he is leaving behind. "No disrespect to Warren or Berkshire – frankly, I love both of them," he said. Sokol was also sufficiently relaxed to conclude the interview by wishing his granddaughter Lucy a happy birthday. Warren Buffett Investing Financial sector US economy Economics United States Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Lorry boss Edward Stobart dies Posted: 31 Mar 2011 09:30 AM PDT Haulage supremo, who built up the Eddie Stobart empire, has died in hospital after suffering from heart problems Haulage magnate Edward Stobart, who ran the Eddie Stobart lorry empire for more than three decades, has died at the age of 56. Stobart was managing director of Eddie Stobart Ltd, a business started by his father Eddie in the 1950s. Eddie Stobart is now in his 80s. He died on Thursday morning at University hospital, Coventry, after suffering from heart problems. Stobart is credited with having built up the brand. He first became involved in the company towards the end of the 1960s, and oversaw its growth from a regional supplier in Cumbria to a giant of the haulage industry, with a cult following. From beginnings in agriculture and then as a road haulage company, the company has expanded into rail and air transport, as well as logistics management and warehousing. But haulage operations continue, with the distinctive trucks operating throughout Europe. The individually named trucks attracted an "Eddie spotting" fanbase, which subsequently led to an official fan club and a merchandising operation selling Stobart-branded goods. The fan club has more than 25,000 members. In 2004, Stobart sold the company to his brother William and business partner Andrew Tinkler. The Stobart Group said: "It is with great sadness and regret that Stobart Group shares the news that Edward Stobart has passed away. Our thoughts are with Edward's wife Mandy, his children and family at this difficult time." Eddie Stobart Automotive industry Transport Camilla Turner guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

They used to eat your coins, now they sell you live crabs Posted: 31 Mar 2011 12:30 PM PDT Vending machines used to just swallow your money. Now they sell anything from drinks to live crabs – and can even offer a lifeline in disaster-hit countries In the early 1990s, environmental campaigners in Japan used to highlight the fact that the nation's 3.6m vending machines collectively used electricity equal to the output of one nuclear power station. Such a comparison holds extra poignancy today, of course, especially when you consider there are now twice the number of vending machines in the country that famously just can't get enough of them. In fact, with the country experiencing rolling blackouts following the earthquake on 10 March, a grassroots campaign was launched to persuade Coca-Cola to switch off its 980,000 vending machines to help conserve energy. An executive from another drinks firm was quick to retaliate: "But vending machines constitute a lifeline for residents." Are vending machines now such an essential component of our instant-fix, consumer lifestyles that we can't do without them, even in an emergency? "There is one vending machine for every 23 people in Japan," says Jonathan Hilder, chief executive of the Automatic Vending Association. "They are the biggest vending market in the world and there is a machine on every street corner selling anything from drinks and live crabs to music and underwear. In the UK, there is a vending machine for every 55 people. But expect vending machines to get ever-more commonplace as they get ever-more sophisticated." Vending has come a long way since the ancient Greeks relied on Hero's coin-operated machine to dispense holy water at temples. The first machines appeared in the UK during the late Victorian era, selling postcards before moving on to the ubiquitous machines we see today selling items such as chocolate bars, stamps and cigarettes (soon to be outlawed) that are found in railway stations and other busy public places. The thing that defines these vending machines is their crude, mechanical simplicity and invariable reluctance – despite often receiving a Fonz-like whack from the frustrated purchaser's clenched fist – to accept coins without rejecting at least a third of them. (The introduction of new 5p and 10p coins by the Royal Mint was recently delayed until next year after lobbying by the vending industry saying it would cost £17m to recalibrate all its machines.) Hilder says the common perception that vending machines "don't accept most coins" is now largely false. "The technology has come on enormously in recent years," he says. "And don't blame it all on the industry: 2.8% of £1 coins are forgeries. "More than seven billion products are vended in the UK each year. The machines offer superb convenience in an age when we crave convenience." The staples will always be popular, but vending is undergoing a revolution in terms of the range of items machines offer, as well as how they are operated. For example, hot drinks are the most popular vended item in the UK today, with 60% of vending machines now found in the workplace. "It's not so much that you can get a hot drink now – that's been the case for years – but the variety on offer is fast increasing," says Hilder. "In the past five years, there's been a boom in larger drink sizes, with 9oz and even 12oz cups becoming the norm. And rather than rely on instant coffee, some machines are even grinding their own coffee beans." The gentrification of vending reflects our ever-demanding and discerning tastes elsewhere across food and drink retailing. But there is also another reason why the vending industry is keen to supersize and diversify its "offerings" – profit. The profit margin on a vended snack, such as a bar of chocolate or packet of crisps, is 30%-40%, says Hilder. But with coffee, the profit margin leaps to 70%. It is beyond food-and-drink vending, though, where the real innovation is to be found. For example, vending machines are now used to distribute methadone in some prisons – not for the convenience of the prisoner, but, by using retinal and fingerprint scanners on the machines, wardens say they can safely ensure it goes to the right person. A Taiwanese company recently developed a vending machine with face-recognition cameras to help it recommend hair-growing tonics and razors to men. And a Canadian firm is developing a "remote-pharmacy dispensing" machine with customers speaking to a real-life pharmacist via videophone before scanning their ID to get their medicines. In fact, improving security is now one of the principal reasons why retailers say they are turning to vending machines: Selfridges has trialled vending designer jeans following a spate of thefts. And increased security also allows retailers to sell things they would never dare normally sell over the counter to the public. Somewhat perplexingly, gold bars are now even being vended in a handful of international airports. Hilder believes the blending together of security and convenience will mean the vending machine becomes an integral component of our 24-hour, instant-access lifestyles in the future. As mobile-phone technology improves, and payment systems move towards "wave pay" (as with London's Oyster card), vending points in public and workplaces will be used both as places to buy goods directly, but also as delivery points for online shopping – a cross between a left-luggage locker and a conventional vending machine. "Most new vending machines now are touch-screen, giving users a wealth of information and options," says Hilder. "And once a universal wave-pay system is adopted – which will be about five to 10 years away – the options will be incredible for what can be vended." But until that day arrives, food and drink will continue to dominate vending. Earlier this month, Coca-Cola revealed a new drinks vending machine it claimed had been in development for six years. Called the "Freestyle", the touch-screen machine offers up to 106 varieties of beverage. At its launch in Atlanta, the company's director of marketing offered some bold claims for the machine: "To our knowledge there is nothing like this in the world. This is the future of fountain dispensing." Retail industry Japan Leo Hickman guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The royal moment has come Posted: 31 Mar 2011 05:25 PM PDT Prince William has shown he can be a new kind of king. It is time to put away the cynicism and pledge our full-throated support A few short weeks from now, with the world looking on, William Arthur Philip Louis Windsor will exchange rings with Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, and much of Britain will rejoice. Yet, at such moments, certain voices – this newspaper's included – have long expressed dissent. All this mawkish celebration, they maintain, merely bolsters an anti-democratic institution based on privilege and patronage, a costly anachronism that ought to be abolished. That view is understandable. But it is time for them – for us – to reconsider. A decade ago, the Guardian prominently announced its commitment to republicanism. But Prince William has shown that he can be a new kind of king. That is why, in a significant change of course, we today pledge our full-throated support for the British monarchy. Let's face it: the current crop of world leaders is far from inspiring. Across the Arab world, dictators battle their own people; at home, attitudes towards Cameron and Clegg alternate between apathy and outrage. In America, the hope that greeted Barack Obama has long since faded. As The King's Speech so vividly reminded us, there are times when only the calming leadership of a hereditary monarch will do; and as the MPs' expenses scandal illustrates, it can be dangerous to trust power-hungry elected officials, who lack the security provided by land ownership and immense wealth. Amid all this, William in particular stands out as something unique: a bastion of tradition with a deeply modern sensibility – not to mention a helicopter pilot's licence. When the time comes, we urge Prince Charles to redouble his focus on his important work in the field of alternative medicine, and to pass the mantle of head of state to his son. For too long, a hair-shirt tendency on the left has insisted that a commitment to progressive values is incompatible with an appreciation for the magic and wonder of royalty. But in this era of austerity, couldn't we all do with being a bit more "happy and glorious"? Few things, after all, are as likely to lift the spirits of Britain's embattled public sector workers or benefit claimants than the sight of Kate Middleton's sure-to-be-spectacular wedding dress. The couple themselves, meanwhile, reflect values close to this paper's own. William encapsulates our spirit of internationalism, thanks to his Greek and German heritage on his father's side, and his gap year in Chile. Kate embodies our commitment to gender equality in the way in which she has faced work-life challenges common to many women today, juggling such roles as accessories buyer for Jigsaw and being one of Tatler magazine's top 10 fashion icons. Other royals, too, are surely deserving of recognition: belatedly, for example, we have come to appreciate the crucial work done by Prince Andrew, using his personal connections to plant the seeds of democracy in repressive regimes worldwide. Beginning today, the Guardian announces a raft of changes designed to ensure that our royal coverage is unrivalled by any other media organisation. We begin an unprecedented month-long, 24-hour royal wedding live blog, offering minute-by-minute coverage of the preparations. We will be recalling correspondents from some less newsworthy parts of the globe, such as north Africa and south-east Asia, so they can focus on palace matters instead. And we will shortly be making available to readers a range of attractive commemorative crockery. The marriage of a prince to a commoner – a true bridging of class divides, if ever there was one – represents the perfect moment for progressives to commit again to the promise of hereditary monarchy. Great philosophers, from Burke to Andrew Morton, have argued powerfully for the institution's value. In any case, it would be churlish to fight the tide of excitement and optimism currently flooding the nation. It is time to put away the cynicism, and get out the union jacks. Royal wedding Monarchy Weddings guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Daughter wins fight to overturn will Posted: 31 Mar 2011 11:39 AM PDT Heather Ilott went to appeal court after mother bequeathed £460,000 to animal charities – leaving her with nothing A woman has succeeded in overturning her mother's will leaving everything to animal charities, after the appeal court ruled it was unreasonable to have made no provision for her. Representatives of the charities warned the ruling could open the floodgates to challenges from aggrieved relatives over bequests. Melita Jackson died in 2004, aged 70, leaving nothing to her daughter, Heather Ilott, and an estate worth £486,000 to the Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and the RSPCA. The court heard that when she made the will in 2002, she also left a letter explaining that they had been estranged since her daughter eloped at the age of 17, and the rift had never been healed in her lifetime. Ilott, who has five children, lives in what was described in court as "modest circumstances", largely on benefits in a housing association home in Great Munden, near Ware in Hertfordshire. She first challenged her mother's will in the district court, asking for "reasonable provision", and was awarded £50,000 from the estate. She then asked the high court to increase the sum, but a cross appeal by the charities succeeded, leaving her with nothing. Now three appeal judges, headed by Sir Nicholas Wall, president of the family division, have overturned that verdict, and ruled that the original district court conclusion was correct. They directed that her appeal over the amount of money coming to her should be heard by the high court – but also warned both sides to consider whether further costly legal action was in anybody's interests. Lady Justice Arden said it was clear that the law intended that an adult child should be able to make a claim, "even if it was possible for him or her to subsist without making a claim on the estate". Lawyers for the animal charities argued that Ilott and her husband had made "lifestyle choices" that left them short of money, and that since she had lived completely independently of her mother for 26 years, she could not now expect maintenance. Solicitor James Aspden, representing the three charities, called the ruling hugely disappointing. "The court of appeal has reinterpreted 30 years of law and left in its place a lack of clear guidance, which creates further uncertainty about a person's right to leave money to people or organisations of their choice," he said. Kim Hamilton, chief executive of the Blue Cross, said it relied on legacies to care for thousands of animals in need. "We are therefore deeply concerned about the impact of this judgment on our future income as it opens the floodgates to legal challenges from any aggrieved relative who, for whatever reason, has been left out of someone's will." Family law Animal welfare Charities Animals Maev Kennedy guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Ronald Dworkin: Lessons in morality Posted: 31 Mar 2011 01:00 PM PDT One of the greatest legal and philosophers of the postwar era, Ronald Dworkin argues in his new book, Justice for Hedgehogs, that there are absolute moral values – and that they are built on dignity and self-respect Ronald Dworkin is wondering about what his friend Alfred Brendel does when he plays the piano. "Why does he play that way? When he plays a great sonata, for example, he must think his interpretation is better than other interpretations or he wouldn't play it that way, mustn't he?" We're having coffee in the vast, coolly modern sitting room of his four-storey Belgravia house. Dworkin, who is not only Sommer Professor of Law and Philosophy at New York University but also Jeremy Bentham Professor of Jurisprudence at University College London, and one of the greatest legal scholars of the postwar era, has other houses – in New York and Martha's Vineyard – but this is the grandest. He reclines, suave and donnish, in his grey armchair. Dworkin smiles, then presses on asking and answering questions, leaving me incidental. "Why does he think what he's playing is better than other interpretations? He must think it's better and the question is why. It's not because what he plays is more beautiful than what he might otherwise play. Because if he was aiming at beauty, he could depart from what the composer had written. But he is faithful to the composition. And yet, he's not just playing the composer's music, he's interpreting it." I mumble something fatuous about how I like the way Brendel plays Schubert's late piano sonatas. Only later do I realise I should have quoted what Dworkin writes about TS Eliot in his new book, Justice for Hedgehogs. Eliot said that poets cannot write poetry except as part of a tradition that they interpret and thereby retrospectively shape. And then I should have added that this is true of all interpreters – poets, painters, perhaps even professors with two intimidating-sounding jobs. But I didn't. Instead, I'm overcome by unworthy thoughts. Why is Dworkin talking about Brendel? After all, one article I read in preparing for this interview concerned Dworkin and Brendel: "These towering intellects are entwined in a poignant and touching emotional foursome. Mr Brendel's wife of 31 years, Irene, is stepping out with Professor Dworkin. Not to be outdone, Moravian-born Brendel, 75, has found comfort and solace with a fortysomething Italian lady called Maria." The Daily Mail's headline? "Odd quartet for Brendel". Let's put aside Daily Mail moralising: if Dworkin can remain friends with Brendel while describing Irene as his "close and longtime companion", then good for him and everybody else involved. We're two hours into a conversation that has ranged over US taxation policy, gay marriages and abortion. To listen to Dworkin is to feel like a drowning man who occasionally glimpses through the mist a stately ship, realising that you'll never get close enough to clamber aboard. I felt similarly reading Justice for Hedgehogs, the 79-year-old professor of philosophy's grand, perhaps culminating, statement of what truth is, what life means, what morality requires and justice demands. The question of how Brendel plays the piano is hardly beside the point. Dworkin's book insists that historians, artists, lawyers, critics and philosophers are all engaged in interpretation. Every time you make a moral or political judgment about, say, gay marriages, you're making an interpretation. But here's the twist that makes his book controversial. Dworkin insists many interpretations are true or false. Yes, it would be daft to say that when Alfred Brendel plays the andantino from Schubert's Sonata in A, he has found the one and only true interpretation; right to say that he aims at interpreting it better than anyone else. But the judge who interprets a past law not only aims at interpreting it correctly, but their judgment is either true or false. Thus, at least, argues Dworkin. Why does any of this matter? "Well, for example, if I say abortion is wrong, I believe what I say is true, not that it's one legitimate opinion among many. I hate it when people say: 'It's OK for gay people to get married but that's only my opinion.' You can't think it's just your opinion or you wouldn't hold it. Imagine a judge who's just sentenced a man to jail for life saying: 'Other judges might have found differently and they're entitled to their opinions.' Who could reasonably say such a thing?" And yet, when Dworkin – a Rhode Island-born graduate of Harvard and Oxford, one-time New York clerk to the marvellously named Judge Learned Hand – started teaching at US law schools in the 1950s, he found lots of people who would say such things. "It was voguish to say that there's no right answer to legal questions. But if you say there's no right answer in interpreting a law and you're talking about justice, you're not really getting involved in the issues that matter. Most intellectuals thought effectively that moral or legal judgments were just emotional expressions with no basis in cognition. Freddie Ayer argued that moral judgments are just grunts of approval or disapproval." Two things made the Grunt Thesis plausible. God and science. God, argues Dworkin, gave us moral laws whose truth was guaranteed by Him. But the rise of science led, Dworkin argues, to scepticism about God's existence and thus a doubt that He could make our values true or false. The methods of science too undermined convictions that there are objective values. "The idea is that we are not entitled to think our moral convictions true unless they are required by pure reason or produced by something in the world." In the book, Dworkin calls this "the Gibraltar of all mental blocks". We must, he argues, get over it. And yet this Gibraltar rules the waves of philosophy: a recent issue of Philosophy Now was themed around the death of morality. If moral judgments can't be true, do we need them at all? When I first studied philosophy 30 years ago, my undergraduate textbook made relativism and scepticism about morality seem natural. It was called Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong by JL Mackie and began: "There are no objective values." It suggested that the fact that values conflict (I support gay marriages, while you – you monster – think they're a disgrace) indicates they can't be true. Dworkin, who used to argue these points at University College, Oxford, with Mackie in the late 70s, says: "My reply to John then and now is that his scepticism is self-defeating. When Mackie says: 'All moral propositions are false', that's a moral proposition, which is false if his proposition 'All moral propositions are false' is true, which it isn't." A-ha, a version of the Cretan liar paradox that Doctor Who used to make a clever robot short-circuit and explode. Sadly, Mackie died in 1981 so isn't around to retort. But if objective moral values aren't in the world, where are they hiding? In the book, Dworkin finally tells us when we are justified in thinking any value judgment true, namely: "When we are justified in thinking that our arguments for holding it true are adequate arguments." Isn't that circular? Yes, but Dworkin argues it's good circular, not bad circular. Super. But why, you'll be wondering, is the book called Justice for Hedgehogs? The title refers to a distinction political philosopher Isaiah Berlin made between hedgehogs and foxes, based on an ancient Greek parable. The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one great thing. Dworkin is a hedgehog. "The hedgehog is an anti-pluralist image. Pluralism was Isaiah Berlin's extremely popular thought that there are truths but they conflict. I think it's wrong. Truths don't conflict in the domain of value any more than in science." This isn't the first time Dworkin has written about cute wildlife. He once wrote a paper called Some Pink Zebras, asking whether something we can imagine but that does not exist can be as real as something that does exist. Justice for Hedgehogs has similar how-many-angels-can-dance on-a-pinheadpassages, but it's grander in vision. He builds up a comprehensive system of value – embracing democracy, justice, political obligation, morality, liberty, equality – from his notions of dignity and self-respect. Again, Dworkin isn't part of the zeitgeist. "Almost all moral philosophy nowadays is steeped in self-abnegation. Mine starts from self-assertion, which was popular with the Greeks like Aristotle and Plato but not now. Now morality is perceived as being about self-sacrifice. I try to show how that's wrong." Why is self-assertion important? "We have a responsibility to live well. Our challenge is to act as if we respect ourselves. Enjoying ourselves is not enough." But doesn't self-assertion clash with our moral duties to others? "No. The first challenge is to live well – that is ethics – and then to see how that connects with what we owe other people – which is morality. The connection is twofold. One is respect for the importance of other people's lives. And the other is equal concern for their lives." Imagine you're in a lifeboat and you have to decide which of two children is to go overboard to their deaths. If you're a utilitarian – who believes what's important morally is maximising the happiness of the greatest number – you wouldn't mind if it was your child or another's who dies. Dworkin's system holds that you're justified in saving your child. Why? "Because it's my child! Because they're part of what it means for my life to be lived well. They're part of my life, for which I take responsibility." His twin children Anthony and Jennifer, let's hope, have always found this part of their dad's philosophy reassuring. "Such favouritism can't work at a political level: you can't give someone tax breaks because he's your son. But at the moral level it does: you can save someone because they're your child, while at the same time respecting other people's lives. Each person must take his own life seriously: he must accept that it is a matter of importance that his life be a successful performance rather than a wasted opportunity. I'm talking about dignity. It's a term overused by politicians, but any moral theory worth its salt needs to proceed from it." This focus on dignity gives his ethical views a special flavour. In earlier books he's argued that a child born with terrible disabilities, or someone condemned to a persistent vegetative state may be better terminated: a life without dignity is not worth living. Here he writes about abortion with the notion of dignity in mind. He believes that "in many circumstances abortion is an act of self-contempt": "A woman betrays her own dignity when she aborts for frivolous reasons: to avoid rescheduling a holiday, for instance. I would reach a different ethical judgment in other cases: when a teenage girl's prospects for a decent life would be ruined if she became a single mother, for example. But whether the judgment is right or wrong in any particular case, it remains an ethical, not a moral, judgment. It must be left to women, as their dignity demands each to take responsibility for her own ethical convictions." What about the foetus? "Because an early foetus has no interests of its own, any more than a flower does, a foetus cannot be supposed to have rights protecting its interests." This perspective leads him, too, to argue that taxation in many countries today is unjust, not because it takes too much but too little. "In the US now, many states are running out of money to do the things that they do. They have to run police forces, fire departments and most of all they have to save people from undignified death." That concern with the dignity we owe others was borrowed by Dworkin from Immanuel Kant: the idea is you cannot respect yourself unless you treat other people objectively well. "That does not happen in the US." The argument – surely especially unpopular in this age of austerity – that taxes should be raised is aimed squarely at middle-class Americans. "In my country, we used to have a triangle, with the poor at the bottom. Now we have a diamond – the middle classes are most numerous, there's contempt for those at the bottom expressed in unwillingness to countenance tax rises that undermines everyone's dignity." At the end of the book Dworkin writes: "Without dignity our lives are only blinks of duration. But if we manage to lead a good life well, we create something more. We write a subscript to our mortality. We make our lives tiny diamonds in the cosmic sands." Has Dworkin made himself a tiny diamond in the cosmic sands? His glittering intellectual career. His 42-year marriage to the beautiful daughter of a rich New Yorker, Betsy Ross, who died in 2000. His romantic consolations late in life. His mental acuity and appetite for argument, as I know to my cost, remain still frighteningly immense. What he says by way of answer makes me feel I need to up my game. "I've tried to be responsible for my decisions and to make an authentic life. When I was a Wall Street lawyer, I realised I didn't want that life. So I went and did what I found most fulfilling, thinking about, arguing for the things that are hard, important and rewarding. I've tried to do it well. I can't say if I've succeeded." Philosophy Ethics Stuart Jeffries guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

My wife enjoyed a threesome Posted: 31 Mar 2011 12:59 PM PDT My wife has admitted to once experimenting with a threesome, but how do I stop myself from obsessing about what she did years ago? I'm in love with a wonderful woman. Our sex life is healthy but she told me (quite flippantly) she had experimented with a threesome before we met, and it's really troubling me. I wonder about the gory details. It makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable and I wish she had never told me. She said she wasn't ashamed of it, it was years ago, and that she loves me and would never do anything to hurt me. Initially she suggested a threesome with me, gauged my reaction, then never mentioned it again. How do I put this irrelevant stuff out of my mind? Or is it irrelevant? My level-headed self tells me that it is. It is not uncommon for a person to find threesomes highly erotic. At some level you know this was nothing to do with you, but you are battling with two aspects of your psyche. First, jealously is a natural human emotion and we are wired to feel uncomfortable about the idea of a lover being with someone else against our wishes. Second, there is an obsessional part of your brain that gets locked into thinking about this subject. This requires urgent attention, so I recommend this thought-stopping technique: whenever the subject enters your mind, 1) notice it, 2) interrupt that thought and 3) replace it with something more positive and realistic – such as "I love her, and the past is unimportant". Some people wear an elastic bracelet they can snap to jolt them into awareness. Eradicate these negative thoughts before they sabotage your relationship. • Pamela Stephenson Connolly is a clinical psychologist and psychotherapist who specialises in treating sexual disorders. • Email your problem to private.lives@guardian.co.uk Sex Relationships Pamela Stephenson Connolly guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Gary Remafedi Posted: 31 Mar 2011 12:30 PM PDT I was glad Apple pulled a Christian 'gay cure' group's iPhone app that misused my research, but it shouldn't have been in the store Last week, the Guardian reported a controversy regarding an iPhone and iPad app for Exodus International. Exodus is an ex-gay ministry promising "freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus". The Exodus website homepage displayed a "4+" consumer rating from Apple, signifying "no objectionable material" in the app. According to other news reports, almost 150,000 person petitioned Apple to remove the app in a public action led by an organisation called Truth Wins Out (TWO). As part of its work, TWO checks the facts about homosexuality in published materials; and it notifies scientists of possible misrepresentations of research findings. Through TWO, I learned of erroneous references to my work in an article by Jeff Buchanan, a senior director at Exodus, accessible through the Exodus app. The work in question (Remafedi et al, 1992) was a report of research done with about 36,000 Minnesota secondary school students. It is one of the largest studies of adolescent sexual orientation done to date; and it was published in a high impact peer-reviewed journal, Pediatrics. This was one of several reports of mine that have been repeatedly misrepresented in recent years. Although each episode had its unique features, some recurring themes, issues and errors (for example, a characteristic misspelling of my surname and a consistent error in a citation date) have emerged from the muck. I have responded consistently and specifically to the misrepresentations that have come to my attention. Addressing each incident has been, frankly, a time-consuming nuisance – especially since some of the references to my work have been so far afield from the original writings that there was reason to doubt they were even read. In this most recent case, I wrote to Apple CEOs Jobs and Cook on 21 March about the misrepresentation of our work in an article accessible via the Exodus app. Retraction of the 4+ rating and deletion of the app were requested as relief. The complaint was directed to Apple, instead of Exodus, because of the risk of spreading and perpetuating misinformation to iPhone users via the app. A spokesperson for Apple, quoted in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, explained the final decision: "We removed the Exodus International app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people." Although the conclusion was welcomed, the statement opened the door to new criticisms that Apple had caved in to a public rabble and washed its hands of the matter. According to WebProNews, Exodus International President Chambers tweeted the reaction: "Incredibly disappointing. Watch out, it could happen to you." In the aftermath of the decision, there were lingering questions about: the app's original approval and 4+ rating, the decision to remove it, Exodus's interest in my research, and lessons to be learned from the incident. Tackling these issues requires some basic information about US law and scientific knowledge of homosexuality. The first amendment of the United States Constitution provides freedom of religion and freedom of expression from governmental interference. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Under the first amendment, corporations like Apple have no obligation to publish every app that comes their way. On the contrary, it permits businesses to conduct their affairs without legislative interference, unless a compelling public interest is at stake. According to Thomas Jefferson, one of the framers, the first amendment also puts a "wall of separation" between church and state; and subsequent laws have bolstered it by prohibiting discrimination in the workplace based on religion or lack thereof. Thus, there is no reason to factor religious considerations into commercial decisions like Apple's as a matter of law. The freedoms afforded by the first amendment are core values, precious to the American people. Still, there are limits to the expression of speech and religion. For example, the first amendment does not protect the expression of ideas that incite crime, violence or reckless public endangerment. There are other limits on the exercise of religious beliefs. The American Academy of Pediatrics has asserted: "Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not permit children to be harmed through religious practices, nor do they allow religion to be a valid legal defense when an individual harms or neglects a child." (See American Academy of Pediatrics, Policy Statement "Religious Objections to Medical Care".) In my opinion, efforts to promote and provide so-called reparative therapy cross the boundaries of protected speech under the first amendment at this time in history, especially when it comes to children and minors. From a medical and scientific perspective, homosexuality is not a medical or mental health condition. Based on the findings of multiple investigators from various disciples over decades of research, a powerful case can be made that claims to cure or change sexual orientation are patently false. The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academic of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association and other professional organisations have found such practices to be unwarranted, ineffective, unethical and harmful, and have opposed them in no uncertain terms. According to the Roman axiom, caveat emptor (aka "buyer beware"), adopted into British-based common law, competent adults who seek unorthodox treatments to repair "broken sexual identities" may do so at their own risk. However, where children and vulnerable adults are involved, caveat emptor does not apply; and the burden of proving that treatments are safe and effective shifts to adults who should know better. This may explain why groups like Exodus International have kept my work in their sights. Without scientific grounds for their stand on the treatment issues, such groups have either taken pot shots at seminal research that is incompatible with their practices or have twisted the findings to suit their own purposes. Adolescent sexuality and its health implications have been the central themes of my research in pediatrics and adolescent medicine. When the work began some 25 years ago, "homosexuality" and other versions of the diagnosis (for example, "ego dystonic homosexuality") had recently been removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry. The existence of homosexual children and youth was barely recognised; and homosexuality was widely believed to be an adult phenomenon. Children and youth who said they were gay were considered misguided, delusional and in need of psychiatric attention. Early studies done with colleagues in pediatrics and public health were among the first to involve youth with well-established gay identities. They chronicled the normal processes of sexual orientation development in childhood and adolescence. They described the impact of isolation and stigma on the occurrence of medical and psychosocial problems. Based on what was learned about adolescent sexual behavior, the spread of HIV/Aids to adolescents was anticipated at a time when the illness was known only as an adult "gay-related immune deficiency". The research led to the establishment of the Youth and Aids Projects, one of the first HIV/Aids service organisations for young people. Beyond HIV/Aids, the research has uncovered evidence of other significant healthcare disparities related to sexual orientation and suicide, substance use, tobacco use, eating disorders and other problems of public health significance. At the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, these works are mentioned as the basis of actions taken to stop distortions of research and harm to vulnerable children and youth. I wrote to Apple asking that the corporation remove an app from the iPhone because it misrepresented our findings and used them in support of erroneous claims that adolescents are confused about sexual orientation and that they can be changed. As I wrote then, and still believe now, associating my work with these claims was "professionally injurious and grievous". There are many lessons to be learned from the incident. Controversy around Exodus's app was predictable and preventable. By definition, an app that could be expected to draw complaints from thousands of people did not meet Apple's established criteria for a 4+ rating. To my knowledge, there has been no explanation of the rating, acknowledgment of responsibility, expression of appreciation for the gravity of the incident, or any amends made on behalf of consumers who were hurt. Any and all of such remedies would help allay dissatisfaction at the way the matter was handled. In the future, it would be appropriate for IT corporations to screen the contents of smartphones apps carefully. In the interest of fairness, corporate quality control review processes and rating standards should be objective, fair and transparent. It would be reasonable to ask vendors to describe their organisations and target audiences, provide up-to-date inventories of online contents, and anticipate the potential risks for consumers and sponsors. Under the guise of the first amendment, groups like Exodus International can be expected to promote so-called reparative therapy and misconstrue research that exposes its fallacious premises. This is not likely to stop until injured parties come forward to claim relief for the harms they have incurred. Until then, this investigator will continue doing what he can to assure that scientific finding are translated to general audiences with fidelity and integrity. Apple iPhone iPad Apps Christianity Young people Gay rights United States Religion US constitution and civil liberties Freedom of speech Gary Remafedi guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Black bloc: 'Only actions count now' Posted: 31 Mar 2011 05:05 AM PDT Two participants in the black bloc protest at Saturday's anti-cuts rally tell Stephen Moss why they're the true face of protest "Meet us outside the British Library. That seems appropriate." I'm due to interview two men in their late 20s who were part of the "black bloc" direct action wing of last Saturday's anti-cuts protest. We'd originally agreed to meet at a bar in King's Cross, but they tell me later it was "too media" for their security concerns. I conduct an interview of sorts, but they are reluctant to tell me much about themselves other than that one is a "low-paid public sector worker". In any case, they have come armed with handwritten answers to questions they have posed to themselves. Anarchists like to be in control. I agree to edit those answers for length, then show them the edited version. Their "self-interview" appears below. I never do learn their names. The media, police and other sections of the left have called the black bloc "criminals", "hooligans" and "cowards". How do you respond? In the legal sense, those who damage property or fight the police have committed crimes, so yes they are criminals. But in everyday language, a criminal is someone who lives by criminal means. We saw plenty of nurses, education workers, tech workers, unemployed workers, students, campaigners and charity workers on the bloc on Saturday, but we didn't see any criminals. As for being hooligans or cowards, the black bloc formation is used for tactical purposes. We aren't trying to be "hard" or to give ourselves a thrill. We are trying to give uncompromising opposition to capitalism an appropriate image on the streets – and not end up in jail. True cowardice would be not fighting an economic system that wants to destroy us. The black bloc is not a group or organisation; it's something that happens on marches or actions. It's not pre-planned; it relies on people turning up with the same ideas and clothes. That is why there is a "uniform": people who want to take direct action and resist containment arrive on the day in black and identify people with the same ideas this way. We had no idea of the numbers before the event on Saturday, and no idea it would be so radical in its actions. The black bloc idea spread like a ripple through the march. As people saw others in black, they changed into black themselves. Some marchers even left the protest to buy black clothing. Is it not fair to say you hijacked the TUC march? No. To hijack it would have meant taking the front of the march and leading it away. What happened was that thousands of marchers left of their own accord to support our direct action and do some of their own. The black bloc largely avoided the march route, only dropping into it twice, briefly. We support the other marchers who didn't take direct action, just like many of them supported us. Don't you think the violence has invalidated your message? Our only collective points were the promotion of a confrontational attitude and the use of symbolic direct action to show that direct action in the wider society was both valid and possible, and that there is a radical movement in this country that's going to put up a fight. We made these points. Anyway, you cannot be "violent" to property. The police chose to attack and arrest people in their defence of property, and got themselves hurt in the attempt. If they had acted rationally, and decided a cracked window was not worth a protester's cracked skull, they would have been fine. Is the black bloc a reaction to police heavy-handedness? We don't do "good cops" versus "bad cops"; whether they smile or snarl while they do it, their primary function is to defend the rule of the wealthy. We do not want the police to control us "more justly" in the interests of capitalism. We want them to stand back for a just society to be created. If they don't, they have picked their side, and they will have to be opposed. Was the bloc anarchist? From the red and black flags in the crowd it seemed to be, but there is nothing inherently anarchist about masking up. By the evening thousands of people had left Hyde Park and were taking action all over central London; the open class warfare of the cuts has convinced far more than the UK's minority of radicals that only actions count. Do you consider the black bloc to be the most radical part of the new movement? No. Occupations of universities and town halls are far more important, and this is where the anti-cuts movement has been heading. To develop, it needs to spread into workplaces next. The black bloc tactic was appropriate to give the day a confrontational edge, and to target the real enemies: the rich. The aim was to make people realise this is not an abstract struggle between "the economy" and us, but between a group of super-rich exploiters and those they are exploiting – the workers. There is now talk of a "mask law" in response to Saturday's action. Don't you feel responsible for that? Introducing a mask law would be a serious misjudgment. Already we've seen how the tactic of kettling has backfired on the police, creating a desire among the crowd to be mobile and in effect unpoliceable. A mask law would probably just make more people wear masks. If last Saturday is anything to go by, they already are. Protest Public sector cuts TUC Public services policy Public finance Trade unions Stephen Moss guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Early results from climate review Posted: 31 Mar 2011 07:30 AM PDT A group of scientists in California has released preliminary findings on how much the Earth is warming What happens when a group of scientists and statisticians leave the comfort of their own fields and wander headlong into one of the most fraught and ugly debates of modern times? The answer is slowly becoming clear, after a handful of academics at the University of California, Berkeley, came up with a plan to produce an independent assessment of global warming. For researchers used to the collegiate exchanges of campus life, the plan has all the makings of a first class ticket to Kill Zone 3. The stated aim of the project is to publish a peer-reviewed assessment of global warming that is more accurate than those we have so far. Once the analysis is done, all the data and computer tools used to process the numbers will be made freely available on a website, so anyone with an interest can check them. Richard Muller, the Berkeley physicist who chairs the group, says that publishing an independent record of global warming will address some valid points raised by sceptics and even end the war between them and the climate scientists they criticise. Few ideas seem as laudable, ambitious and naive all at once. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity plays a significant role in rising temperatures. For the best part, debate within the community centres on the precise magnitude of warming, the rate at which it is happening in different regions, and what can or should be done to mitigate its effects. But still climate change is one of the most argued-over issues in science. The broad agreement among climate researchers is under fire from a minority of sceptics and large portions of the public might well sit confused on the sidelines. Earlier today, Muller gave evidence to the House of Representatives committee on science, space and technology, and released a very preliminary analysis of historic land temperatures. I've pasted their findings below, but will give some background first. There are three major groups of scientists who already produce assessments of global warming that feed into the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There is Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, another US agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), and finally a UK group led by the Met Office. Each group takes readings from instruments around the world to come up with a rolling record of the Earth's mean surface temperature. The warming figures they arrive at differ very slightly because each group uses its own dataset and does its own analysis, but they reveal a common trend. Since pre-industrial times, all point to a warming of around 0.75C. The Berkeley Earth project aims to incorporate a larger quantity of data, much of which comes from temperature stations installed since the 1960s. Arguably the most interesting aspect of Muller's project is the hope of dealing with biases in temperature data that might or might not be adequately dealt with in the analyses done by Nasa, Noaa and the Met Office. There are all kinds of things that can bias temperature readings, making them cooler or warmer than they should be. An oft-cited example is that a temperature station that was in a rural environment fifty years ago might today be on the fringes of a city, and feel more heat as a result. I gave a flavour of some other potential biases, and a more detailed explanation of the project, in an article on Muller last month. The results announced by Muller today are exceedingly preliminary. The group has compiled 1.6 billion temperature measurements from 39,028 stations around the world, but used only two percent of these in the analysis. The stations used were picked at random, to avoid any bias towards older instruments (which have longer temperature records), poor quality stations, or any particular geographical region. But apart from these, no other sources of bias have been dealt with yet. Here is the preliminary temperature record the Berkeley group made public today: Clearly, there is very close agreement between the Berkeley analysis and the warming trends reported by the major three climate groups, that is a rise of around 0.7 degrees C since 1957. In notes prepared in advance of Thursday's hearings, Muller writes: "The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us, since our preliminary results don't yet address many of the known biases. When they do, it is possible that the corrections could bring our agreement into disagreement." Another interesting outcome from the analysis so far regards the impact of temperature stations being located near buildings, car parks and other urban sources of heat. In 2009, a former TV weatherman, Anthony Watts, published a report claiming the problem with "poor stations" was serious enough to render the US temperature record unreliable. Based on preliminary work, Muller says this isn't true. "Over the past 50 years the poor stations in the US network do not show greater warming than do the good stations," his notes say. There has already been some fuss over the Berkeley Earth project, with most criticism coming from bloggers who believe Muller has an agenda. You can get a flavour here. One point that is often raised is that some money for the project comes from the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation. The man behind the outfit owns, with his brother David, , a company Greenpeace called a "kingpin of climate science denial". Muller says that the project, which is run under the auspices of Novim, a non-profit public interest group, has funders on both the left and right. Here is a breakdown of funds behind the project, which total $623,087. The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20k) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ($188,587) William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100k) Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research, created by Bill Gates ($100k) Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150k) The Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation ($50k) Private donations totalling $14,500. As I have emphasised, these are very preliminary results. The data and the analysis are not yet peer reviewed, though a paper is being submitted to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. We may have to wait several weeks or months for the full analysis that addresses all the sources of bias across the whole dataset. Climate change Climate change scepticism Climate change Ian Sample guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

ESPN to show BBC sports archive Posted: 31 Mar 2011 08:33 AM PDT 1966 World Cup final included in ESPN Classic's deal to show top sports from BBC's archive ESPN has agreed an archive programming deal with the BBC to show sporting events on its ESPN Classic channel, including the 1966 World Cup final between England and West Germany. As part of a channel revamp, the first since sister channel ESPN launched in the UK in 2009 with live FA Premier League football, ESPN Classic will show about 80 hours of BBC archive footage, along with unveiling its new look. The BBC deal includes archive footage from FA Cup matches, international football, Formula One , Test cricket, international rugby, horseracing and sports documentaries. New on-air graphics and music will accompany the revamp, with five artists portraying 20 of the most famous sporting stars of all time. Other new series on the channel include Legends of the Barclays Premier League, focusing on the finest footballers to have played in the top flight, and Uefa Euros: The Official Story. Ross Hair, the managing director of ESPN Europe, Middle East and Africa, said: "It reinforces ESPN Classic's position as a part of the growth and vision of our business in the region and our ongoing strategy to create more continuity between the channels and brands in our portfolio." ESPN Television industry Sport TV BBC Sports rights guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A green light for the redtops Posted: 31 Mar 2011 08:16 AM PDT That you can't libel the dead under English law means an apology is simply the cost of doing business for tabloid editors It is an interesting quirk of the English legal system that you can't libel the dead. Very handy if you're a tabloid news editor, at say, the Sun, and you publish an article about 23-year-old Julian Brooker from Brighton becoming a "human fireball" after touching a railway line while crawling around pretending to be Gollum from Lord of the Rings. The shop assistant was drunk, the red top behemoth informed its readers in 2005, because it was 23 October and Julian was obsessed with the number 23. A great tabloid exclusive. Were an iota of it true, that is. In the last 24 hours the Sun's subsequent apology to the late Julian ("His parents have asked us to make clear he was not turned into a fireball, was not obsessed with the number 23 and didn't go drinking on that date every month. We apologise for the distress this has caused Julian's family and friends") has resurfaced across the Twittersphere to howls of derision. Some unacquainted with the idiosyncrasies of Britain's newspaper industry have questioned whether the whole thing is in fact a hoax. Sadly, it's not. Far from being an exception, such cases stray dangerously close to being a rule. I make that claim with authority because during the two years I worked at the Daily Star I wrote similar, arguably worse, yarns. When Boyzone star Stephen Gately died in October 2009, I was dispatched to Mallorca to investigate. Beneath my byline in the days that followed were lurid revelations of heavy drinking, drugs he may have taken, and gay orgies he may have been part of. We tabloid reporters knew little, but under pressure to deliver much, the hotel bar soon swirled with speculation. Thoughts morphed into theories, theories shifted into fact. After all, you can't libel the dead. The same month Kevin McGee, former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, committed suicide. At the Daily Star I picked up the phone to a reader who claimed he knew the couple and the story behind the tragedy. "How much is that worth?" He asked. I told him we needed to meet first. He replied that he was out of town. "Sod it, you can't libel the dead," someone proffered. That afternoon I wrote the story: "LUCAS EX BLEW £2 MILLION ON DRUGS AND BOOZE." The tabloid news cycle, unrelenting, waits for no man. It also doesn't like whistleblowers, as I found out after I wrote a public resignation letter earlier this month. Tabloid editors often argue that the Press Complaints Commission is there to put things right when they get them wrong (except at Express Newspapers, where they have withdrawn their subscription to the PCC). This is a disingenuous argument. They know the horse has bolted, and strapped to its back is a big bag of cash from readers who thought they were paying for thrusting journalism, for the inside scoop. Privately, they know human tragedy is a raw material ready to be forged into facile tabloid narratives, while an apology is just a cost of doing business, a gesture to keep the news wheel greased. But the association of Gollum will always taint Julian Brooker's memory, and the cliche of a drugs- and booze-fuelled suicide always devalue that of Kevin McGee. Tabloids may not be able to libel the dead, but they can certainly start having more respect for them. Newspapers Libel reform Newspapers & magazines Richard Desmond Daily Star Northern & Shell National newspapers Stephen Gately Richard Peppiatt 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