|  |  |  | | | | | The Guardian World News | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Trip to Beijing to meet Chinese leaders would be North Korean leader's first visit abroad after death of his father, Kim Jong-il North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is seeking an ice-breaking trip to key ally Beijing next month to meet China's outgoing and new leaders, a source with ties to Pyongyang and Beijing told Reuters on Friday. It would be Kim's first visit abroad since he assumed power in the reclusive state following the death of his father, Kim Jong-il, in December. It follows the recent high-profile visit to Beijing by Kim's uncle, Jang Song-thaek, who is effectively the second most powerful figure in North Korea. "It will be a get-to-know-you trip," said the source, who has correctly predicted events in the past, including the country's first nuclear test in 2006 days before it was conducted, as well Jang's ascension. "It will be a state visit. This was one of the most important missions of Jang Song-thaek's visit," said the source, who has direct knowledge of the request. The source said Pyongyang was likely to repeat its threat to carry out a third nuclear test unless Washington and Seoul agree to its long-standing demand to sign a permanent peace treaty to replace the armistice that ended the 1950-53 Korean war. "There is no doubt North Korea has the capability [for a third nuclear test], but China is strongly opposed to it," the source said. "North Korea wants a permanent peace treaty to replace the armistice in exchange for dropping plans for a third nuclear test. It's been 60 years and it is time to [formally] end the war with a peace treaty," the source added. The Chinese foreign ministry declined to comment when reached by telephone.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Seven-times Tour de France champion had failed in court to stop US Anti-Doping Agency pursuing case against him
Matt Seaton: How Lance Armstrong strong-armed cycling Lance Armstrong has announced he will stop fighting a barrage of drug charges from the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), putting at risk his unparalleled string of seven Tour de France titles and his legacy as one of the greatest sportsmen in history. Armstrong's declaration on Thursday night sets up a likely lifetime ban from the sport and the possibility that he will be stripped of his signature achievement – the extraordinary run of Tour titles he won from 1999 to 2005. The USADA responded by saying it would strip Armstrong of his titles. The agency's chief, Travis Tygart, said Armstrong's decision was "heartbreaking", according to Reuters. Armstrong, who retired in 2011, declined to enter arbitration – his last option – because he said he was weary of fighting accusations that have dogged him for years. He has consistently pointed to the hundreds of drug tests that he has passed as proof of his innocence. "There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now," Armstrong said in a statement. He called the USADA investigation an "unconstitutional witch-hunt". "I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999," he said. "The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense." USADA will almost certainly treat Armstrong's decision as an admission of guilt and hang the label of drug cheat on an athlete who was a hero to thousands for overcoming life-threatening testicular cancer and for his foundation's support for cancer research. The agency can impose a lifetime ban and recommend Armstrong be stripped of his titles. That would put the question in the hands of the International Cycling Union, which has disputed USADA's authority to pursue the investigation, and Tour de France officials, who have had a prickly relationship with Armstrong over the years. Armstrong insisted his decision was not an admission of drug use but a refusal to enter an arbitration process he believed was improper and unfair to athletes facing charges. "USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles," he said. "I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours." USADA maintains that Armstrong used banned substances as far back as 1996, including the blood-booster EPO and steroids as well as blood transfusions, all to boost his performance. The 40-year-old Armstrong walked away from the sport in 2011 without being charged following a two-year federal criminal investigation into many of the same accusations he faces from USADA. The federal probe was closed in February but USADA announced in June it had evidence Armstrong used banned substances and methods and encouraged their use by teammates. The agency also said it had blood tests from 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent" with blood doping. Included in USADA's evidence were emails written by Armstrong's former US Postal Service teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after a positive drug test. Landis's emails to a USA Cycling official detailed allegations of a complex doping programme on the team. USADA also said it had 10 former Armstrong teammates ready to testify against him. Other than suggesting they include Landis and Tyler Hamilton, both of whom have admitted to doping offences, the agency has refused to say who they are or specifically what they would say. "There is zero physical evidence to support [the] outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of [doping] controls I have passed with flying colours," Armstrong said. Armstrong sued the USADA in Austin, where he lives, in an attempt to block the case and was supported by the UCI, the sport's governing body. A judge threw out the case on Monday, siding with the USADA despite questioning the agency's pursuit of Armstrong in his retirement. "USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping or if it is acting according to less noble motives" such as politics or publicity, US district judge Sam Sparks wrote. Now the ultra-competitive Armstrong has done something virtually unthinkable for him: he has quit before a fight is over. "Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities," Armstrong said. Armstrong could have pressed his innocence in USADA's arbitration process but the cyclist has said he believes most people have already made up their minds about whether he's a fraud or a persecuted hero. It's a stunning move for an athlete who built his reputation on not only beating cancer but forcing himself through gruelling off-season workouts no one else could match, then crushing his rivals in the Alps and the Pyrenees. Although he had already been crowned a world champion and won individual stages at the Tour de France, Armstrong was still relatively unknown in the US until he won the epic race for the first time in 1999. It was the ultimate comeback tale: when diagnosed with cancer, doctors had given him less than a 50% chance of survival before surgery and brutal cycles of chemotherapy saved his life. Armstrong's riveting victories, his work for cancer awareness and his gossip-page romances with rocker Sheryl Crow, fashion designer Tory Burch and actor Kate Hudson made him a figure who transcended sports. His dominance of the Tour de France elevated the sport's popularity in the US to unprecedented levels. His story and success helped sell millions of the "Livestrong" plastic yellow wrist bracelets and enabled him to enlist lawmakers and global policymakers to promote cancer awareness and research. His Lance Armstrong Foundation has raised nearly $500m since its founding in 1997. Created in 2000, USADA is recognised by Congress as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic sports in the US. Its investigators joined US agents during the federal probe, and USADA chief executive Travis Tygart had dismissed Armstrong's lawsuit as an attempt at "concealing the truth". He said the agency was motivated by one goal: exposing cheats in sport. Others close to Armstrong were caught up in the charges: Johan Bruyneel, the coach of Armstrong's teams, and three members of the medical staff and a consultant were also charged. Bruyneel is taking his case to arbitration, while two medical team staffers and consulting doctor Michele Ferrari didn't formally contest the charges and were issued lifetime ban by USADA. Ferrari later said he was innocent. Armstrong has been under constant suspicion since the 1990s from those who refused to believe he was a clean rider winning cycling's premier event against a field of doped-up competition. He had tense public disputes with USADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency, former teammates and assistants and even Greg LeMond, the first American to win the Tour de France. Through it all Armstrong vigorously denied any and all hints, rumours and direct accusations he was cheating. He had the blazing personality, celebrity and personal wealth needed to fight back with legal and public relations battles to clear his name and he did, time after time. Armstrong won his first Tour at a time when doping scandals had rocked the race. He was leading the race when a trace amount of a banned anti-inflammatory corticosteroid was found in his urine; cycling officials said he was authorised to use a small amount of a cream to treat saddle sores. After Armstrong's second victory in 2000 French judicial officials investigated his Postal Service team for drug use. That investigation ended with no charges but the allegations kept coming. Armstrong was criticised for his relationship with Ferrari, who was banned by Italian authorities over doping charges in 2002. Former personal and team assistants accused Armstrong of having steroids in an apartment in Spain and disposing of syringes that were used for injections. In 2004, a Dallas-based promotions company initially refused to pay him a $5m bonus for winning his sixth Tour de France because it wanted to investigate allegations raised by media in Europe. Testimony in that case included former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife, Betsy, saying Armstrong told doctors during his 1996 cancer treatments that he had taken a cornucopia of steroids and performance-enhancing drugs. Two books published in Europe, LA Confidential and LA Official, also raised doping allegations, and in 2005 the French magazine L'Equipe reported that retested urine samples from the 1999 Tour showed EPO use. Armstrong fought every accusation with denials and, in some cases, lawsuits against the European media outlets that reported them. But he showed signs that he was tiring of the never-ending questions. Armstrong retired (for the first time) in 2005 and almost immediately considered a comeback before deciding to stay on the sidelines, in part because he didn't want to keep answering doping questions. "I'm sick of this," Armstrong said in 2005. "Sitting here today, dealing with all this stuff again, knowing if I were to go back, there's no way I could get a fair shake on the roadside, in doping control, or the labs." But three years later Armstrong was 36 and itching to ride again. He came back to finish third in the 2009 Tour de France. Armstrong raced in the Tour again in 2010 under the cloud of the federal criminal investigation. Early last year he quit the sport for good but made a brief return as a triathlete until the USADA investigation shut him down. During his sworn testimony in the dispute over the $5m bonu,s Armstrong said he wouldn't take performance-enhancing drugs because he had too much to lose. "[The] faith of all the cancer survivors around the world. Everything I do off the bike would go away too. And don't think for a second I don't understand that. It's not about money for me. Everything. It's also about the faith that people have put in me over the years. So all of that would be erased," he said.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Seven-times Tour de France champion had failed in court to stop US Anti-Doping Agency pursuing case against him
Matt Seaton: How Lance Armstrong strong-armed cycling Lance Armstrong has announced he will stop fighting a barrage of drug charges from the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), putting at risk his unparalleled string of seven Tour de France titles and his legacy as one of the greatest sportsmen in history. Armstrong's declaration on Thursday night sets up a likely lifetime ban from the sport and the possibility that he will be stripped of his signature achievement – the extraordinary run of Tour titles he won from 1999 to 2005. The USADA responded by saying it would strip Armstrong of his titles. The agency's chief, Travis Tygart, said Armstrong's decision was "heartbreaking", according to Reuters. Armstrong, who retired in 2011, declined to enter arbitration – his last option – because he said he was weary of fighting accusations that have dogged him for years. He has consistently pointed to the hundreds of drug tests that he has passed as proof of his innocence. "There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now," Armstrong said in a statement. He called the USADA investigation an "unconstitutional witch-hunt". "I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999," he said. "The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense." USADA will almost certainly treat Armstrong's decision as an admission of guilt and hang the label of drug cheat on an athlete who was a hero to thousands for overcoming life-threatening testicular cancer and for his foundation's support for cancer research. The agency can impose a lifetime ban and recommend Armstrong be stripped of his titles. That would put the question in the hands of the International Cycling Union, which has disputed USADA's authority to pursue the investigation, and Tour de France officials, who have had a prickly relationship with Armstrong over the years. Armstrong insisted his decision was not an admission of drug use but a refusal to enter an arbitration process he believed was improper and unfair to athletes facing charges. "USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles," he said. "I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours." USADA maintains that Armstrong used banned substances as far back as 1996, including the blood-booster EPO and steroids as well as blood transfusions, all to boost his performance. The 40-year-old Armstrong walked away from the sport in 2011 without being charged following a two-year federal criminal investigation into many of the same accusations he faces from USADA. The federal probe was closed in February but USADA announced in June it had evidence Armstrong used banned substances and methods and encouraged their use by teammates. The agency also said it had blood tests from 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent" with blood doping. Included in USADA's evidence were emails written by Armstrong's former US Postal Service teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after a positive drug test. Landis's emails to a USA Cycling official detailed allegations of a complex doping programme on the team. USADA also said it had 10 former Armstrong teammates ready to testify against him. Other than suggesting they include Landis and Tyler Hamilton, both of whom have admitted to doping offences, the agency has refused to say who they are or specifically what they would say. "There is zero physical evidence to support [the] outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of [doping] controls I have passed with flying colours," Armstrong said. Armstrong sued the USADA in Austin, where he lives, in an attempt to block the case and was supported by the UCI, the sport's governing body. A judge threw out the case on Monday, siding with the USADA despite questioning the agency's pursuit of Armstrong in his retirement. "USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping or if it is acting according to less noble motives" such as politics or publicity, US district judge Sam Sparks wrote. Now the ultra-competitive Armstrong has done something virtually unthinkable for him: he has quit before a fight is over. "Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities," Armstrong said. Armstrong could have pressed his innocence in USADA's arbitration process but the cyclist has said he believes most people have already made up their minds about whether he's a fraud or a persecuted hero. It's a stunning move for an athlete who built his reputation on not only beating cancer but forcing himself through gruelling off-season workouts no one else could match, then crushing his rivals in the Alps and the Pyrenees. Although he had already been crowned a world champion and won individual stages at the Tour de France, Armstrong was still relatively unknown in the US until he won the epic race for the first time in 1999. It was the ultimate comeback tale: when diagnosed with cancer, doctors had given him less than a 50% chance of survival before surgery and brutal cycles of chemotherapy saved his life. Armstrong's riveting victories, his work for cancer awareness and his gossip-page romances with rocker Sheryl Crow, fashion designer Tory Burch and actor Kate Hudson made him a figure who transcended sports. His dominance of the Tour de France elevated the sport's popularity in the US to unprecedented levels. His story and success helped sell millions of the "Livestrong" plastic yellow wrist bracelets and enabled him to enlist lawmakers and global policymakers to promote cancer awareness and research. His Lance Armstrong Foundation has raised nearly $500m since its founding in 1997. Created in 2000, USADA is recognised by Congress as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic sports in the US. Its investigators joined US agents during the federal probe, and USADA chief executive Travis Tygart had dismissed Armstrong's lawsuit as an attempt at "concealing the truth". He said the agency was motivated by one goal: exposing cheats in sport. Others close to Armstrong were caught up in the charges: Johan Bruyneel, the coach of Armstrong's teams, and three members of the medical staff and a consultant were also charged. Bruyneel is taking his case to arbitration, while two medical team staffers and consulting doctor Michele Ferrari didn't formally contest the charges and were issued lifetime ban by USADA. Ferrari later said he was innocent. Armstrong has been under constant suspicion since the 1990s from those who refused to believe he was a clean rider winning cycling's premier event against a field of doped-up competition. He had tense public disputes with USADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency, former teammates and assistants and even Greg LeMond, the first American to win the Tour de France. Through it all Armstrong vigorously denied any and all hints, rumours and direct accusations he was cheating. He had the blazing personality, celebrity and personal wealth needed to fight back with legal and public relations battles to clear his name and he did, time after time. Armstrong won his first Tour at a time when doping scandals had rocked the race. He was leading the race when a trace amount of a banned anti-inflammatory corticosteroid was found in his urine; cycling officials said he was authorised to use a small amount of a cream to treat saddle sores. After Armstrong's second victory in 2000 French judicial officials investigated his Postal Service team for drug use. That investigation ended with no charges but the allegations kept coming. Armstrong was criticised for his relationship with Ferrari, who was banned by Italian authorities over doping charges in 2002. Former personal and team assistants accused Armstrong of having steroids in an apartment in Spain and disposing of syringes that were used for injections. In 2004, a Dallas-based promotions company initially refused to pay him a $5m bonus for winning his sixth Tour de France because it wanted to investigate allegations raised by media in Europe. Testimony in that case included former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife, Betsy, saying Armstrong told doctors during his 1996 cancer treatments that he had taken a cornucopia of steroids and performance-enhancing drugs. Two books published in Europe, LA Confidential and LA Official, also raised doping allegations, and in 2005 the French magazine L'Equipe reported that retested urine samples from the 1999 Tour showed EPO use. Armstrong fought every accusation with denials and, in some cases, lawsuits against the European media outlets that reported them. But he showed signs that he was tiring of the never-ending questions. Armstrong retired (for the first time) in 2005 and almost immediately considered a comeback before deciding to stay on the sidelines, in part because he didn't want to keep answering doping questions. "I'm sick of this," Armstrong said in 2005. "Sitting here today, dealing with all this stuff again, knowing if I were to go back, there's no way I could get a fair shake on the roadside, in doping control, or the labs." But three years later Armstrong was 36 and itching to ride again. He came back to finish third in the 2009 Tour de France. Armstrong raced in the Tour again in 2010 under the cloud of the federal criminal investigation. Early last year he quit the sport for good but made a brief return as a triathlete until the USADA investigation shut him down. During his sworn testimony in the dispute over the $5m bonu,s Armstrong said he wouldn't take performance-enhancing drugs because he had too much to lose. "[The] faith of all the cancer survivors around the world. Everything I do off the bike would go away too. And don't think for a second I don't understand that. It's not about money for me. Everything. It's also about the faith that people have put in me over the years. So all of that would be erased," he said.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Seoul court orders companies to take some iPhone, iPad and Galaxy products off shelves in South Korea A South Korean court has fined both Apple and Samsung, ruling that each infringed the other's patents in building their mobile devices and banning some of their products from sale in the country. The Seoul central district court ordered Apple to remove the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 1 and iPad 2 from shelves in South Korea, citing they infringed two of Samsung's telecommunications patents. The court also ruled that Samsung infringed one of Apple's patents related to the screen's bouncing back ability and banned sales of the Galaxy S2 and other products in South Korea. Sales of devices recently released by Samsung and Apple including the iPhone 4S and the Galaxy S3 smartphones were not affected. The court also ordered the two parties to pay monetary compensation to each other. Samsung must pay Apple 25 million won (£14,000/$22,000) while Apple must pay its rival 40 million won (£22,000/$35,000). The lawsuit is part of a global multi-billion dollar fight between the world's two largest smartphone makers. The biggest stakes are in the US, where the two companies are locked in a federal court struggle over patents and innovation. California-based Apple sued Samsung in 2011 in the US, alleging that some of the South Korean company's smartphones and computer tablets are little more than illegal copies of Apple's iPhone and iPad. Samsung denies the allegations and argues that all companies in the industry mimic each other's successes without crossing the legal line. Apple is suing South Korean-based Samsung for $2.5bn (£1.5bn), making the case one of the biggest technology disputes in history. Jury deliberations are continuing after three weeks of testimony concluded on Wednesday. Days after Apple filed its suit in the US, Samsung filed a lawsuit on its home turf and in other countries, accusing Apple of breaching its telecommunications patents.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Seven-times Tour de France champion had failed in court to stop US Anti-Doping Agency pursuing case against him Lance Armstrong has announced he will stop fighting a barrage of drug charges from the US Anti-Doping Agency, putting at risk his unparalleled string of seven Tour de France titles and his legacy as one of the greatest sportsmen in history. Armstrong's declaration on Thursday night sets up a likely lifetime ban from the sport and the possibility that he will be stripped of his signature achievement the extraordinary run of Tour titles he won from 1999 to 2005. Armstrong, who retired in 2011, declined to enter arbitration – his last option – because he said he was weary of fighting accusations that have dogged him for years. He has consistently pointed to the hundreds of drug tests that he has passed as proof of his innocence. "There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now," Armstrong said in a statement. He called the USADA investigation an "unconstitutional witch-hunt". "I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999," he said. "The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense." USADA will almost certainly treat Armstrong's decision as an admission of guilt and hang the label of drug cheat on an athlete who was a hero to thousands for overcoming life-threatening testicular cancer and for his foundation's support for cancer research. The agency can impose a lifetime ban and recommend Armstrong be stripped of his titles. That would put the question in the hands of the International Cycling Union, which has disputed USADA's authority to pursue the investigation, and Tour de France officials, who have had a prickly relationship with Armstrong over the years. Armstrong insisted his decision was not an admission of drug use but a refusal to enter an arbitration process he believed was improper and unfair to athletes facing charges. "USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles," he said. "I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours." USADA maintains that Armstrong used banned substances as far back as 1996, including the blood-booster EPO and steroids as well as blood transfusions, all to boost his performance. The 40-year-old Armstrong walked away from the sport in 2011 without being charged following a two-year federal criminal investigation into many of the same accusations he faces from USADA. The federal probe was closed in February but USADA announced in June it had evidence Armstrong used banned substances and methods and encouraged their use by teammates. The agency also said it had blood tests from 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent" with blood doping. Included in USADA's evidence were emails written by Armstrong's former US Postal Service teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after a positive drug test. Landis's emails to a USA Cycling official detailed allegations of a complex doping program on the team. USADA also said it had 10 former Armstrong teammates ready to testify against him. Other than suggesting they include Landis and Tyler Hamilton, both of whom have admitted to doping offences, the agency has refused to say who they are or specifically what they would say. "There is zero physical evidence to support [the] outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of [doping] controls I have passed with flying colours," Armstrong said. Armstrong sued the USADA in Austin, where he lives, in an attempt to block the case and was supported by the UCI, the sport's governing body. A judge threw out the case on Monday, siding with the USADA despite questioning the agency's pursuit of Armstrong in his retirement. "USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping or if it is acting according to less noble motives" such as politics or publicity, US District Judge Sam Sparks wrote. Now the ultra-competitive Armstrong has done something virtually unthinkable for him: He has quit before a fight is over. "Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities," Armstrong said. Armstrong could have pressed his innocence in USADA's arbitration process but the cyclist has said he believes most people have already made up their minds about whether he's a fraud or a persecuted hero. It's a stunning move for an athlete who built his reputation on not only beating cancer but forcing himself through gruelling off-season workouts no one else could match, then crushing his rivals in the Alps and the Pyrenees. Although he had already been crowned a world champion and won individual stages at the Tour de France, Armstrong was still relatively unknown in the US until he won the epic race for the first time in 1999. It was the ultimate comeback tale: when diagnosed with cancer, doctors had given him less than a 50% chance of survival before surgery and brutal cycles of chemotherapy saved his life. Armstrong's riveting victories, his work for cancer awareness and his gossip-page romances with rocker Sheryl Crow, fashion designer Tory Burch and actor Kate Hudson made him a figure who transcended sports. His dominance of the Tour de France elevated the sport's popularity in America to unprecedented levels. His story and success helped sell millions of the "Livestrong" plastic yellow wrist bracelets and enabled him to enlist lawmakers and global policymakers to promote cancer awareness and research. His Lance Armstrong Foundation has raised nearly $500m since its founding in 1997. Created in 2000, USADA is recognised by Congress as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic sports in the United States. Its investigators joined US agents during the federal probe, and USADA chief executive Travis Tygart had dismissed Armstrong's lawsuit as an attempt at "concealing the truth". He said the agency was motivated by one goal: exposing cheats in sport. Others close to Armstrong were caught up in the charges: Johan Bruyneel, the coach of Armstrong's teams, and three members of the medical staff and a consultant were also charged. Bruyneel is taking his case to arbitration, while two medical team staffers and consulting doctor Michele Ferrari didn't formally contest the charges and were issued lifetime ban by USADA. Ferrari later said he was innocent. In a sport rife with cheaters Armstrong has been under constant suspicion since the 1990s from those who refused to believe he was a clean rider winning cycling's premier event against a field of doped-up competition. He had tense public disputes with USADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency, some former teammates and assistants and even Greg LeMond, the first American to win the Tour de France. Through it all Armstrong vigorously denied any and all hints, rumours and direct accusations he was cheating. He had the blazing personality, celebrity and personal wealth needed to fight back with legal and public relations battles to clear his name and he did, time after time. Armstrong won his first Tour at a time when doping scandals had rocked the race. He was leading the race when a trace amount of a banned anti-inflammatory corticosteroid was found in his urine; cycling officials said he was authorised to use a small amount of a cream to treat saddle sores. After Armstrong's second victory in 2000 French judicial officials investigated his Postal Service team for drug use. That investigation ended with no charges but the allegations kept coming. Armstrong was criticised for his relationship with Ferrari, who was banned by Italian authorities over doping charges in 2002. Former personal and team assistants accused Armstrong of having steroids in an apartment in Spain and disposing of syringes that were used for injections. In 2004 a Dallas-based promotions company initially refused to pay him a $5m bonus for winning his sixth Tour de France because it wanted to investigate allegations raised by media in Europe. Testimony in that case included former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife, Betsy, saying Armstrong told doctors during his 1996 cancer treatments that he had taken a cornucopia of steroids and performance-enhancing drugs. Two books published in Europe, LA Confidential and LA Official, also raised doping allegations, and in 2005 the French magazine L'Equipe reported that retested urine samples from the 1999 Tour showed EPO use. Armstrong fought every accusation with denials and, in some cases, lawsuits against the European media outlets that reported them. But he showed signs that he was tiring of the never-ending questions. Armstrong retired (for the first time) in 2005 and almost immediately considered a comeback before deciding to stay on the sidelines, in part because he didn't want to keep answering doping questions. "I'm sick of this," Armstrong said in 2005. "Sitting here today, dealing with all this stuff again, knowing if I were to go back, there's no way I could get a fair shake on the roadside, in doping control, or the labs." But three years later Armstrong was 36 and itching to ride again. He came back to finish third in the 2009 Tour de France. Armstrong raced in the Tour again in 2010 under the cloud of the federal criminal investigation. Early last year he quit the sport for good but made a brief return as a triathlete until the USADA investigation shut him down. During his sworn testimony in the dispute over the $5m bonus Armstrong said he wouldn't take performance enhancing drugs because he had too much to lose. "[The] faith of all the cancer survivors around the world. Everything I do off the bike would go away too. And don't think for a second I don't understand that. It's not about money for me. Everything. It's also about the faith that people have put in me over the years. So all of that would be erased."
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | • Turn on our auto-refresh tool for the latest updates
• Email james.riach.casual@guardian.co.uk
• Or follow him on the Twitter @James_Riach
• Read Paolo Bandini's Serie A blog here
Preamble: Well, it's only been four months without a Clasico but it feels like an eternity. Barcelona and Real Madrid met six times last season and, for one reason or another, each contest was an enthralling spectacle. The most eagerly-anticipated fixture in world football returns tonight in Catalunia and who would be foolish enough to predict its outcome? Eye-gouging, red cards, embarrassing dives, pigs heads (admittedly no snouted beast has been hurled from the stands in a while) and most importantly, wonderful football. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but for the purists, this is THE ONE. Last season the Spanish Super Cup produced a barnstorming tie, with Barça prevailing 5-4 on aggregate and famous for the 'Unique One's' cowardly prod on Tito Vilanova's retina. Vilanova is now in the Barça hot seat and it will be the first Clasico without Pep Guardiola since 2008. I wonder where Pep is tonight – following this commentary no doubt, somewhere with his feet up and a Piña Colada in hand, and I hope you are all doing the same. Barcelona: Valdes, Alves, Pique, Mascherano, Adriano, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta, Alexis, Messi, Pedro. Subs: Fabregas, Puyol, Villa, Pinto, Jordi Alba, Sergi Roberto, Tello Real Madrid: Casillas, Arbeloa, Albiol, Sergio Ramos, Coentrao, Alonso, Khedira, Callejon, Ozil, Ronaldo, Benzema. Subs: Varane, Granero, Marcelo, Adan, Higuain, Di Maria, Lass Diarra, Nacho, Morata, Jesus There were rumours in the build-up to this match that both coaches wouldn't field their strongest XIs with league games in mind at the weekend, but Mourinho and Vilanova know how damaging a defeat in this tie would be. There is no place for Pepe, usually at the centre of any trouble in these games, as he was concussed during Los Blancos' 1-1 draw with Valencia on Sunday. Barça, meanwhile, leave new signing Alex Song out of their squad and come into the game on the back of demolishing Real Sociedad 5-1 in their season opener. In case you forgot what happened last year... 9.21pm: Nine minutes until kick-off at Camp Nou 9.23pm: I'm going for a 4-4 draw tonight, Messi red card for a vicious clothesline on Raul Albiol, Ronaldo to retaliate with a Stone Cold Stunner on the unwitting Sergio Busquets. 9.26pm: "Two households both alike in dignity" ... oh Christ, Sky's coverage has gone all Baz Luhrmann on us. 9.27pm: The players are out and we're about to get underway! And we're off! Madrid get us underway. 1min: Arbeloa immediately lumps the ball long and Madrid have an early free-kick halfway inside Barca's half following a clumsy challenge from Mascherano. "It will be as intense as a Champions League meeting," insists the commentator. Let's hope so. 2min: Early chance for Madrid to test this Barcelona defence. Alonso sprays the ball out wide to the right instead of crossing into the box, he gets it back and looks to play in Khedira, but the flag is raised for offside. 3min: First big roar from this Nou Camp crowd as Busquets turns away from his marker in the centre circle. Barca beginning to press but they lose the ball and Madrid break, Ronaldo gallops forward like a gazelle on heat but is stopped in his tracks by Alves, good challenge says the referee. 5min: Coentrao throws it to Benzema but the Frenchman can't keep hold of the ball. It's a bit scrappy thus far, bags of energy as expected but neither side has settled. 6min: Barca beginning to get a foothold on proceedings and keeping the ball well. Madrid aren't pressing them until they cross the halfway line though, which means the home side's defenders can just stroke the ball too and fro. 8min: Ronaldo looks to play in Benzema from the right flank but there's just not enough pace on the ball and Pique can scramble clear. A wee bit stronger and that could have been a real chance. 9min: Benzema felled by a flick of Adriano's boot but no cards dished out as yet. Madrid look to get things going immediately and Ronaldo looks to slip a deft through ball to Benzema ... just intercepted! Crickey, Busquets goes flying over the top following a challenge from Alonso, who immediately raises his arm apologetically. 11min: The ball hasn't yet gone out of play following that challenge from Alonso, and when it does a full two minutes later, the referee reaches into his pocket and books Raul Albiol of all people! Well it wasn't Albiol who made the tackle but maybe he had a word in the referee's ear. 12min: Busquets is getting a bit of rough treatment out there and, right on cue, decides to pirouette and roll around on the ground. Well, at least no-one should be surprised any more. 14min: Messi has a chance to drive forward towards the heart of Madrid's defence, he plays a one-two and then looked to have been checked, but no free-kick given. Still Barca press and Iniesta hooks a left-footed ball across goal from out wide, but it has too much pace and Alexis can't quite latch onto it. 15min: My word, Messi gives the ball away with a sloppy pass and Madrid break, but Khedira's cross from the left wing is woeful and easily cleared. Both teams lacking a bit of sharpness. 17min: Tiki-taka is beginning to click into gear for Barca now, but there is a white wall on the edge of the Madrid box, forcing the home side backwards and Pique eventually has a pop from 25 yards ... always going wide. Not the worst effort, mind. 18min: Messi is again felled and this time it is a foul, but Barcelona are given the advantage as the momentum was with them. Great cover from Ramos, though, as Alexis almost broke free of the last defender. 19min: Messi goes close! I was just waiting for the net to bulge there but his attempt from just inside the area flies wide! Wonderful play from Alves down the right to control expertly before fizzing the ball back to the edge of the box. Closest we've come to a goal. 21min: Now Madrid are beginning to look a bit bedraggled as the relentless passing machine of Barca cranks into operation. Their shape is good and they are certainly employing counter-attacking tactics, but can they keep chasing their opponents? 23min: Another poor touch from a Barcelona player and this time Xavi is the culprit. There is certainly some ring-rustiness out there as Albiol goes through the back of Sanchez, he's got to be careful after that earlier booking. 24min: Benzema stopped firmly in his tracks by Mascherano and Ronaldo raises his eyes. Disgust, dismay, frustration...probably all those things. Danger now for Madrid though as Barca win a free-kick at the other end as Arbeloa brings down Xavi. This is in shooting range... 25min: We are definitely going to see a shot from this free-kick, 25 yards out and pretty central. Messi lines it up and pulls the trigger...into the wall and behind. 27mins: Intricate play from Messi and Alves in and around the opposition area, but Arbeloa was aware of the danger and hacks away at the last. It's all starting to get a little bit desperate for Los Merengues though. 28min: Great double block from Ramos and Coentrao, as Xavi had a dig from the edge of the D. White shirts are flying all over the shop! 29min: Messi drags another effort wide! That left peg of his is slightly out of kilter at the moment, pulling his effort from just inside the area well wide of Casillas' left upright. He looks disgusted with himself. 31min: Another counter from Madrid and it's slick play with Benzema driving into the area, shrugging off the challenge of Adriano and firing across goal...blocked for a corner. 32min: Ozil whips it into the mixer but that's downright rotten from the German, headed away with ease. Suddenly the momentum shifts again and Iniesta brings it forward for Barca. Eventually it falls for Pedro 30 yards from goal who lines one up...and he stings the palms of Casillas! Decent effort that moved in the air. 34min: Ramos brings the ball out of defence but he sends an appalling pass straight to the feet of Alves, who then launches an attack for Barca, who themselves then squander possession. Come on chaps, step it up! 35min: Ozil with a corner but again it's headed clear with relative ease, but the orb is fired back to the left touchline and Ozil loops one over to the far post this time...there are two men over for Madrid but Valdes comes charging out and leaps like a demented one-fisted lion to punch clear. 37mins: Ronaldo cuts into the area down the left and chips it across goal but Mascherano heads clear – he's been my man of the half so far – a midfielder who really has adapted to playing at centre-half so well. 38mins: Don't expect to see a goal before the whistle goes for half-time but here's to hoping... 39mins: Terrible dive by Alexis! Right on cue! It's about time we had some histrionics tonight and lo and behold, it's the Chilean who delivers. He knocked the ball past Ramos inside the area and the Spain defender went sliding in before pulling out of the challenge, with Sanchez proceeding to tumble down. No card for simulation though. 41mins: Barcelona continue to dominate possession but haven't been their normal deadly self in front of goal. Madrid happy with sitting behind the ball. 42mins: Wonderful turn from Xavi on the edge of the D and Albiol brings him down with a cumbersome effort at a tackle. Still no card for him! I do wonder what that earlier booking was for – it certainly played on the referee's mind there. 43mins: Xavi hits the free-kick...off the ball and out for a corner. Barca still press and Busquets is brought down by Arbeloa, surely a card... 44mins: Yep, Arbeloa picks up a yellow card but nothing is made of the free-kick, Messi's delivery well short of the quality we expect of the wee man. Madrid counter now, as they have done all game, and it's another scything challenge! Mascherano hacks down Coentrao and that is another definite yellow! 45mins: The ball is played over the top for Benzema but there is a late flag for offside. That should be that for the first half. Half-time. It's 0-0 at the interval in the first Clasico of the season. Drop me a line if you have any thoughts on tonight's game. It hasn't exactly been exhilarating and Mourinho will be the happier of the two managers. 10.28pm: So apparently it was Alonso who picked up that earlier yellow card, despite the television saying Albiol. How on earth, therefore, has the defender escaped going in the book since then?! 10.32pm: The players are out for the second half and we are ready to get underway again. Will Madrid try and hold out for the 0-0? The match restarts 46mins: No changes in personnel at the break but I wonder if David Villa will be brought on at some point. He played at the weekend after sitting out last season with that long-term injury. Mike O'Leary emails: I think the humidity was a big factor from the start. I live near Barcelona and it's really close here. Starting to miss Pepe.
48mins: Well there were nine goals in the two legs in this tie last season, but I wasn't doing the commentary then, so they've saved this one for me. Thaaanks. 49mins: Trixy Callejon is skipping down the right and Madrid are actually enjoying a spell on the ball in the early stages of this second half. Free-kick as Alexis clips the heels of Arbeloa. 50mins: Ozil drifts the ball into the box with his left foot but the referee awards Barca a free-kick as Ronaldo goes tumbling to the deck, deemed to have committed an infringement. 51mins: Albiol brings Busquests crashing to the ground and picks up a deserved yellow card. That's his FIRST yellow of the game, confirmation that it was Alsono booked in the first half. He's been on thin ice for a while to be fair. 53mins: Another pathetic attempt to con the referee from Alexis! Alves chipped the ball forward and a ricochet inside the area bounced kindly for the Chilean, and he thunders on to the turf after a collision with Arbeloa. There was perhaps contact, but he has previous I'm afraid and that has counted against him. GOAL! Ronaldo opens the scoring! 55mins: Ozil whips a corner in from the right and Ronaldo gets in front of his marker Busquets to thump a header into the back of the net! GOAL! Pedro equalises for Barcelona! 1-1! 56mins: Blimey it's all happening here. Straight from the kick-off Mascherano launches a ball over the top for Pedro, he is just about level with Coentrao and controls the ball expertly before firing low past Casillas! 59mins: Now we've got a game on. Woefully sloppy from Madrid there who completely switched off after taking the lead. Why oh why didn't Coentrao step up and simply play Pedro offside? It was a marginal call from the linesman but Coentrao could have made it simple. 60mins: Almost a disastrous own goal from Arbeloa, who decides to chest it back to Casillas when two yards out! Luckily for him Alexis had shoved him in the back and it's a Madrid free-kick. 61mins: Real Madrid substitution: Benzema off, Higuain on. 62mins: Alves forces a fine save from Casillas! Suddenly Barcelona are rampant and the Brazilian cuts inside before hitting the ball low across goal from inside the area on the right, but it's tipped wide! 63mins: Well this game is a marked contrast from the first-half. Both sides are going for it now and there is certainly more emphasis on attack. 65mins: Higuain attempts a half-volley inside the area...charged down! It falls to Callejon...blocked! 66mins: Di Maria on, Callejon off 67mins: Messi looks to play a one-two with Iniesta but it's intercepted by Ramos. It's Barcelona's chance to turn the screw now but Madrid are defending well. Angus McNeice says: I'm watching in a bar in Santiago and even the Chileans are ashamed of Alexis' cheating. Side note - Mourinho poked Tito in the cornea, not the retina. Striking the retina would take a horrific gouge, penetrating the pupil, lens, and the vitreous humor, rendering a victim blind in that eye.
69mins: Penalty to Barcelona! Iniesta brought down by Ramos in the area! 70mins: GOAL! Messi sends Casillas the wrong way and fires low into the goalkeeper's bottom left corner! 2-1! 72mins: So it's a complete turnaround here. Mourinho will be furious with his side after squandering a lead. Barcelona are looking to make a change and inflict some more misery on Madrid. 72mins: Barcelona substitution: Sanchez off, Tello on 74mins: Valdes has to deal with a couple of tricky crosses and does so well. Suddenly Alonso picks out Ozil over the top with a staggering raking ball, but he can't control and the defenders get back in numbers. Phenomenal ball from Alonso! 76mins: Pedro is in a bit of pain, Ramos inadvertently stands on his side while tumbling over the Barca forward. He'll have a few nasty stud marks that's for sure, but there was no malice from the Madrid man. Matt Dony: Gotta love Ramos. Sold by the cutback, clearly didn't touch the ball, and got Iniesta's ankle caught between his legs. Hands straight up in the air in a 'Wasnt me, he must've dived, guv' stylee. The shamelessness of football knows no bounds.
GOOOOOOOAAAAAAAALLLLLLL! Xavi makes it 3-1 Barcelona! 77mins: WHAT A GOAL! That was magical stuff from Andres Iniesta, breathtakingly quick feet to dance round two defenders before slipping a perfect pass through for Xavi, who tucked it home. Wonderful. 79mins: This second half has been breathtaking, and still Barca come again and again. Pique finds himself in an advanced position but the pass through is overhit. 82mins: Real Madrid substitution: Marcelo on, Ozil off 83mins: Messi is clattered to the ground by his ARCH NEMESIS Ronaldo and Barca have a free-kick. The home side preparing another change... 83mins: Barcelona substitution: Fabregas on, Xavi off 85mins: Real Madrid are looking tired now but if they can get that second goal it would change the complexion of the tie completely. At least they've got that away goal. GOOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLL! Disaster for Valdes and Di Maria tucks it home! 3-2! 86mins: Victor Valdes, bow your head in shame. That was abysmal goalkeeping as he controls a backpass before attempting to shimmy round Di Maria, only to lose the ball and see it in the back of his own net. You've got to laugh, unless you're a Barca fan. 87mins: Casillas had just made a crucial save before that Madrid goal – how important that proved to be. 88mins: Barcelona substitution: Alba on, Pedro off 90mins: This pulsating second half is drawing to a close and both sides have been left wanting at the back. Three minutes of injury time to be played. 90+2mins: Madrid aren't looking to slow the tempo down as they probe for a late equaliser. They won't do it like that though, as Di Maria knocks the balls straight out of play. Thomas Boschat: Valdes would be a superb goalkeeper if it wasn't for those 3-4 gaffs he makes every season which stick in people's minds.
Unfortunately the fact he makes those gaffes means he will never be a superb goalkeeper. The full-time whistle goes! It finishes Barcelona 3-2 Real Madrid. Well that was a ridiculous second half. Five goals in it and some sublime play, as well as a piece of buffoonery from Valdes. Madrid will surely be the happier of the two sides and take two away goals back to the Bernabeu next week. Andres Iniesta – marry me? That's all from me folks, I'll catch you next time.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | As Gawker's Bain files show, Romney's wealth is serious – and his financial instruments complex. What lessons can be drawn? Gawker's dump of 950 pages of documents detailing aspects of Mitt Romney's investments shout out one big truth: that Mitt Romney is not just super-wealthy, but that his wealth is nurtured through a thicket of financial instruments that surpass ordinary expectations of wealth. He also makes money from British shit. But we'll come to that in a minute. The latest Gawker cache is just the tip of an accounting iceberg, since it details investments that may account for only a mere $10m of Romney's estimated $250m in assets, and described just 21 of the hedge funds, vehicles and partnerships that Romney uses. There are doubtless many more. Once again, the spotlight turns back onto Romney's association with Bain Capital, since each of the 21 institutions detailed by Gawker are affiliated with Bain. And once again Mitt Romney's taxes become an issue, since many of these are located in the Cayman Islands, a place associated for good or ill with tax avoidance. Not that anyone is suggesting Mitt Romney has done anything wrong. As the Republican candidate himself repeatedly says: "I paid the taxes required under the law." It's just that the vast majority of Americans don't get the opportunity to invest in Cayman Islands-domiciled funds, whatever the law may say. There's a lot to get through in these documents, and who can say what might be revealed? And yet, as is the style of American journalists, a few US writers have taken to emitting theatrical yawns, most spectacularly a reporter for a magazine called Fortune named Dan Primack, who declared: "There is nothing in there that will inform your opinion of Mitt Romney. How do I know? Because I saw many of the exact same documents months ago, after requesting them from a Bain Capital investor. What I quickly learned [was] that there was little of interest…" Beauty and news being in the eye of the beholder, we can judge for ourselves, and in fact Primack – a contender for some sort of "reverse Pulitzer" for non-investigative journalism – is flat wrong. There are at least a few things that may indeed "inform" opinions of Mitt Romney. Take, for example, Prospect Harbor Credit Partners, described as "a $2.8bn Delaware-based fund investing in a wide variety of American, Dutch, English and German firms", in which Romney had investments of at least $1.25m, or the Bain Capital Europe Fund III, a $287m fund denominated in euros that invested primarily in Europe. Mitt Romney the presidential candidate is fond of berating Europe for its weak economy, and there are a couple of reasons why he might feel so strongly. It's almost as if Romney needs to make a financial disclaimer for every policy position he takes. In the case of Bain Capital Europe Fund III, its entire capital was in two further holding companies, both based in Luxembourg, one named Ideal Standard International Topco and the other named Gemma Europe. The only outcome of note here is a "management fee" of €65m in 2009 paid to Bain Capital's partners. Nothing earth-shattering there, but an example of the twisting, impenetrable (for ordinary mortals) sort of places that Mitt Romney's money ends up, with Cayman Islands-based holding companies owning Luxembourg-based holding companies that pass money between themselves. Well, that's not quite true. You'd never know it from reading the financial statements of Bain Capital Europe Fund III, but Ideal Standard International Topco is the 100% owner of manufacturer Ideal Standards International, which also owns Armitage Shanks – a familiar name to anyone who has used a toilet in Britain. Yes, that's right: Mitt Romney profits from British shit. But as they say in Britain, where there's muck, there's brass. Ideal Standard passes on its profits from toilet sales to Ideal Standard International Topco, which passes them on to Bain Capital Europe Fund III in Cayman Islands, which sends them on to the investors and Bain Capital partners past and present, such as Mitt Romney. Now all this may indeed merit a big yawn in Wall Street and the City of London, but Mitt Romney isn't applying to lead a hedge fund called US Capital Fund I. He's running to be president of the United States and voters may be more interested in the grubby details than the masters of the universe.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Miller had overseen company's failed relaunch of MySpace as well as its involvement in Hulu and Roku streaming products Jonathan Miller, chief digital officer of News Corporation, is leaving the company at the end of September as he seeks a more hands-on role with a standalone firm. Thursday's announcement comes as News Corp prepares to split off its newspaper and publishing businesses into a separate company from its TV and movie assets. Miller, formerly chief executive of AOL, joined News Corp in April 2009. He oversaw the aborted relaunch of troubled social networking site MySpace, which was sold at a fire-sale price in June 2011. Miller also oversaw News Corp's stake in Hulu, the online video site also part-owned by the Walt Disney Company, Comcast and Providence Equity Partners. He also sat on Hulu's board. Hulu was put up for sale but pulled off the market last year. Instead, Disney and News Corp agreed to buy Providence's 10% stake for $200m. Most recently Miller oversaw News Corp taking equity stakes in Roku Inc. which makes set-top boxes for web video streaming and Bona Film Group Ltd, a Chinese film distributor. News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch said in a statement: "I respect Jon's desire to return to an operational, entrepreneurial role with a standalone company. He will be missed." Miller will continue to serve as an outside adviser to News Corp through the fall of 2013. News Corp shares fell $0.21 to close at $23.47 amid a broad market decline.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | James Holmes defense faces off with prosecution over release of a notebook sent to University of Colorado psychiatrist Prosecutors say the suspect in the Aurora theater shooting made threats and was banned from the University of Colorado after failing a key exam six weeks earlier. They made the accusations about James Holmes in court Thursday as they tried to convince a judge to let them see records from the university, where Holmes had been a graduate student. Holmes is accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 others in the 20 July shooting at an Aurora theater. They also claim professors had urged Holmes to get into another line of work before the shooting. Attorney Karen Pearson didn't disclose where their information came from. Defense lawyer Daniel King objected to the release of the records, calling the prosecution's request a "fishing expedition". Holmes is a former neuroscience doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado. Prosecutors are seeking copies of 100 pages of non-medical education records subpoenaed by prosecutors and turned over last week by the school to Arapahoe County district judge William Sylvester. Defense attorneys are seeking to suppress the subpoena and have asked that nobody, even Sylvester, examine the documents. Defense attorney Tamara Brady's legal reasoning about why Holmes' educational records should be off limits is unavailable. That portion of the court file remains sealed. Prosecutors said in court that they need the documents to gain access to a notebook reportedly containing violent descriptions of an attack. The notebook reportedly was in a package sent to CU psychiatrist Lynne Fenton. Defense attorney Daniel King has said the notebook is protected by a doctor-patient relationship. King claims that Holmes is mentally ill and sought Fenton for help with that illness. Fenton is expected to testify at a hearing on 30 August.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | • Turn on our auto-refresh tool for the latest updates
• Email james.riach.casual@guardian.co.uk
• Or follow him on the Twitter @James_Riach
• Read Paolo Bandini's Serie A blog here 10.28pm: So apparently it was Alonso who picked up that earlier yellow card, despite the television saying Albiol. How on earth, therefore, has the defender escaped going in the book since then?! Drop me a line if you have any thoughts on tonight's game. It hasn't exactly been exhilarating and Mourinho will be the happier of the two managers. Half-time. It's 0-0 at the interval in the first Clasico of the season. 45mins: The ball is played over the top for Benzema but there is a late flag for offside. That should be that for the first half. 44mins: Yep, Arbeloa picks up a yellow card but nothing is made of the free-kick, Messi's delivery well short of the quality we expect of the wee man. Madrid counter now, as they have done all game, and it's another scything challenge! Mascherano hacks down Coentrao and that is another definite yellow! 43mins: Xavi hits the free-kick...off the ball and out for a corner. Barca still press and Busquets is brought down by Arbeloa, surely a card... 42mins: Wonderful turn from Xavi on the edge of the D and Albiol brings him down with a cumbersome effort at a tackle. Still no card for him! I do wonder what that earlier booking was for – it certainly played on the referee's mind there. 41mins: Barcelona continue to dominate possession but haven't been their normal deadly self in front of goal. Madrid happy with sitting behind the ball. 39mins: Terrible dive by Alexis! Right on cue! It's about time we had some histrionics tonight and lo and behold, it's the Chilean who delivers. He knocked the ball past Ramos inside the area and the Spain defender went sliding in before pulling out of the challenge, with Sanchez proceeding to tumble down. No card for simulation though. 38mins: Don't expect to see a goal before the whistle goes for half-time but here's to hoping... 37mins: Ronaldo cuts into the area down the left and chips it across goal but Mascherano heads clear – he's been my man of the half so far – a midfielder who really has adapted to playing at centre-half so well. 35min: Ozil with a corner but again it's headed clear with relative ease, but the orb is fired back to the left touchline and Ozil loops one over to the far post this time...there are two men over for Madrid but Valdes comes charging out and leaps like a demented one-fisted lion to punch clear. 34min: Ramos brings the ball out of defence but he sends an appalling pass straight to the feet of Alves, who then launches an attack for Barca, who themselves then squander possession. Come on chaps, step it up! 32min: Ozil whips it into the mixer but that's downright rotten from the German, headed away with ease. Suddenly the momentum shifts again and Iniesta brings it forward for Barca. Eventually it falls for Pedro 30 yards from goal who lines one up...and he stings the palms of Casillas! Decent effort that moved in the air. 31min: Another counter from Madrid and it's slick play with Benzema driving into the area, shrugging off the challenge of Adriano and firing across goal...blocked for a corner. 29min: Messi drags another effort wide! That left peg of his is slightly out of kilter at the moment, pulling his effort from just inside the area well wide of Casillas' left upright. He looks disgusted with himself. 28min: Great double block from Ramos and Coentrao, as Xavi had a dig from the edge of the D. White shirts are flying all over the shop! 27mins: Intricate play from Messi and Alves in and around the opposition area, but Arbeloa was aware of the danger and hacks away at the last. It's all starting to get a little bit desperate for Los Merengues though. 25min: We are definitely going to see a shot from this free-kick, 25 yards out and pretty central. Messi lines it up and pulls the trigger...into the wall and behind. 24min: Benzema stopped firmly in his tracks by Mascherano and Ronaldo raises his eyes. Disgust, dismay, frustration...probably all those things. Danger now for Madrid though as Barca win a free-kick at the other end as Arbeloa brings down Xavi. This is in shooting range... 23min: Another poor touch from a Barcelona player and this time Xavi is the culprit. There is certainly some ring-rustiness out there as Albiol goes through the back of Sanchez, he's got to be careful after that earlier booking. 21min: Now Madrid are beginning to look a bit bedraggled as the relentless passing machine of Barca cranks into operation. Their shape is good and they are certainly employing counter-attacking tactics, but can they keep chasing their opponents? 19min: Messi goes close! I was just waiting for the net to bulge there but his attempt from just inside the area flies wide! Wonderful play from Alves down the right to control expertly before fizzing the ball back to the edge of the box. Closest we've come to a goal. 18min: Messi is again felled and this time it is a foul, but Barcelona are given the advantage as the momentum was with them. Great cover from Ramos, though, as Alexis almost broke free of the last defender. 17min: Tiki-taka is beginning to click into gear for Barca now, but there is a white wall on the edge of the Madrid box, forcing the home side backwards and Pique eventually has a pop from 25 yards ... always going wide. Not the worst effort, mind. 15min: My word, Messi gives the ball away with a sloppy pass and Madrid break, but Khedira's cross from the left wing is woeful and easily cleared. Both teams lacking a bit of sharpness. 14min: Messi has a chance to drive forward towards the heart of Madrid's defence, he plays a one-two and then looked to have been checked, but no free-kick given. Still Barca press and Iniesta hooks a left-footed ball across goal from out wide, but it has too much pace and Alexis can't quite latch onto it. 12min: Busquets is getting a bit of rough treatment out there and, right on cue, decides to pirouette and roll around on the ground. Well, at least no-one should be surprised any more. 11min: The ball hasn't yet gone out of play following that challenge from Alonso, and when it does a full two minutes later, the referee reaches into his pocket and books Raul Albiol of all people! Well it wasn't Albiol who made the tackle but maybe he had a word in the referee's ear. 9min: Benzema felled by a flick of Adriano's boot but no cards dished out as yet. Madrid look to get things going immediately and Ronaldo looks to slip a deft through ball to Benzema ... just intercepted! Crickey, Busquets goes flying over the top following a challenge from Alonso, who immediately raises his arm apologetically. 8min: Ronaldo looks to play in Benzema from the right flank but there's just not enough pace on the ball and Pique can scramble clear. A wee bit stronger and that could have been a real chance. 6min: Barca beginning to get a foothold on proceedings and keeping the ball well. Madrid aren't pressing them until they cross the halfway line though, which means the home side's defenders can just stroke the ball too and fro. 5min: Coentrao throws it to Benzema but the Frenchman can't keep hold of the ball. It's a bit scrappy thus far, bags of energy as expected but neither side has settled. 3min: First big roar from this Nou Camp crowd as Busquets turns away from his marker in the centre circle. Barca beginning to press but they lose the ball and Madrid break, Ronaldo gallops forward like a gazelle on heat but is stopped in his tracks by Alves, good challenge says the referee. 2min: Early chance for Madrid to test this Barcelona defence. Alonso sprays the ball out wide to the right instead of crossing into the box, he gets it back and looks to play in Khedira, but the flag is raised for offside. 1min: Arbeloa immediately lumps the ball long and Madrid have an early free-kick halfway inside Barca's half following a clumsy challenge from Mascherano. "It will be as intense as a Champions League meeting," insists the commentator. Let's hope so. And we're off! Madrid get us underway. 9.27pm: The players are out and we're about to get underway! 9.26pm: "Two households both alike in dignity" ... oh Christ, Sky's coverage has gone all Baz Luhrmann on us. 9.23pm: I'm going for a 4-4 draw tonight, Messi red card for a vicious clothesline on Raul Albiol, Ronaldo to retaliate with a Stone Cold Stunner on the unwitting Sergio Busquets. 9.21pm: Nine minutes until kick-off at Camp Nou In case you forgot what happened last year... There were rumours in the build-up to this match that both coaches wouldn't field their strongest XIs with league games in mind at the weekend, but Mourinho and Vilanova know how damaging a defeat in this tie would be. There is no place for Pepe, usually at the centre of any trouble in these games, as he was concussed during Los Blancos' 1-1 draw with Valencia on Sunday. Barça, meanwhile, leave new signing Alex Song out of their squad and come into the game on the back of demolishing Real Sociedad 5-1 in their season opener. Real Madrid: Casillas, Arbeloa, Albiol, Sergio Ramos, Coentrao, Alonso, Khedira, Callejon, Ozil, Ronaldo, Benzema. Subs: Varane, Granero, Marcelo, Adan, Higuain, Di Maria, Lass Diarra, Nacho, Morata, Jesus Barcelona: Valdes, Alves, Pique, Mascherano, Adriano, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta, Alexis, Messi, Pedro. Subs: Fabregas, Puyol, Villa, Pinto, Jordi Alba, Sergi Roberto, Tello Preamble: Well, it's only been four months without a Clasico but it feels like an eternity. Barcelona and Real Madrid met six times last season and, for one reason or another, each contest was an enthralling spectacle. The most eagerly-anticipated fixture in world football returns tonight in Catalunia and who would be foolish enough to predict its outcome? Eye-gouging, red cards, embarrassing dives, pigs heads (admittedly no snouted beast has been hurled from the stands in a while) and most importantly, wonderful football. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but for the purists, this is THE ONE. Last season the Spanish Super Cup produced a barnstorming tie, with Barça prevailing 5-4 on aggregate and famous for the 'Unique One's' cowardly prod on Tito Vilanova's retina. Vilanova is now in the Barça hot seat and it will be the first Clasico without Pep Guardiola since 2008. I wonder where Pep is tonight – following this commentary no doubt, somewhere with his feet up and a Piña Colada in hand, and I hope you are all doing the same.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Barack Obama was once hailed as America's first hip-hop president. Why have so many rappers now given up on 'B-rock'? Earlier this year, Killer Mike made quite a splash with his latest album, R.A.P. Music. Critics couldn't help but marvel at the unlikely pairing of Mike, with his distinctly southern credentials (and drawl to match), and New York producer EL-P, an underground figure known for his aggressive, frenetic sound. But it was one track in particular, Reagan, that really raised eyebrows. Although Mike's ostensible target in the song is former Republican President Ronald Reagan (Mike's not a huge fan – his final line is "I'm glad Reagan dead") he also takes some unexpected shots at Barack Obama, at one point characterising him as "just another talking head telling lies on teleprompters". Elsewhere, he compares Obama's military policies to Reagan's. We might be surprised to hear this kind of criticism of the man who, just a few years earlier, was declared "America's first hip-hop president" because of his deep ties to the genre. Was Killer Mike really attacking the man once dubbed "B-Rock" by Vibe magazine? The real surprise, however, is that the track Reagan is not an isolated rebuke but merely the most recent illustration of the deteriorating relationship between Obama and hip-hop. Killer Mike is just one voice in a growing chorus of dissent from within the rap world by artists who believe Obama has failed to take up the pressing issues facing black people in the US. "Quite obviously, black America is in terrible crisis," says Tricia Rose, professor of Africana studies at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. "The racial and class dimensions of this crisis have simply been largely sidestepped by the Obama presidency and muted by black leadership, which seems largely frozen by the effect of not wanting to undermine the first black president." The waning of the Obama/hip-hop love affair appears to be a two-way street, with Obama showing far less interest in the genre than he did in 2008. In fact, the distinction between his two presidential campaigns is stark. Rewind to the first election. In the early stages of his campaign, then-senator Obama was making tentative overtures to hip-hop, noting in particular his appreciation of, and interest in, rap music. This was remarkable, in that he was flipping the script on two decades of campaign orthodoxy – followed by Democrats and Republicans alike – that hip-hop was politically radioactive. (In fact, the term "Sister Souljah moment" – used to describe when politicians distance themselves from extreme elements within their own party – has its origins in hip-hop: in 1992, Bill Clinton publicly repudiated rapper and activist Sister Souljah for her provocative comments after the Los Angeles riots.) By 2008, seeing the energy his hip-hop affiliations could generate, especially with young voters, Obama was all in – encouraging artists such as Jay-Z and Sean "Diddy" Combs to campaign for him, frequently referencing rap music in his interviews and speeches, and playing rap at his events. In one of the lasting images of the campaign, Obama stood in front of an audience in Raleigh, North Carolina and, invoking Jay-Z's 2003 track Dirt Off Your Shoulder, pretended to brush dirt off his own shoulder. He received standing applause from the crowd and a huge amount of news coverage afterwards. In that one motion, he had transformed the liability of his relative youth into an asset and, in the process, swept away any doubts that hip-hop would remain front and centre for the remainder of his campaign. Rappers were more than happy to play their part, too. As early as 2007, Obama's name started appearing in songs by socially conscious rappers such as Common and Talib Kweli, but it wasn't until the summer of 2008, when he emerged as the Democratic frontrunner, that Obama sparked a mini-industry of songs and mixtapes making direct reference to his candidacy. A long line of performers – including Nas, Jay-Z, Ludacris, Lil Wayne, Big Boi, Busta Rhymes, Jadakiss, will.i.am, Three 6 Mafia and Young Jeezy – drew on Obama's rhetoric of hope and change in an effort to mobilise youth and minority voters (and maybe to sell a few albums). It worked. In the 2008 election, youth voter turnout was the highest it had been in 35 years, and it helped propel Obama to the White House. Fittingly, Jay-Z and Diddy had highly coveted seats on the Capitol steps for the inauguration, while Young Jeezy's My President could be heard playing from street corners across the nation's capital. After that, it was clear that hip-hop could be a potent mobilising force. "Hip-hop brought awareness to a group of young adults who probably would not have voted otherwise," says Jermaine Hall, editor-in-chief of Vibe magazine. "Some were educated on Obama's political points. Others were just happy to be part of electing a black president into office. Either way the role that Jay-Z, Puff [Diddy] and other hip-hop influencers played in that election can never be denied." After the election, however, hip-hop receded into the background. In 2009, the Obamas launched the White House Music Series, which has sponsored a variety of musical performances at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Since its inception, the series has paid tribute to a wide range of genres, including classical, jazz, Motown and country, but rap, the music so instrumental to Obama's success, still hasn't been formally recognised. In fairness, the president isn't entirely to blame for this. In May of 2011, the Obamas invited Common to perform at a White House poetry event, but rightwing pundits – Sarah Palin and Karl Rove foremost among them – doused the event in controversy, using deviously selective readings of Common's work to argue that Obama had just welcomed an anti-police "thug" into his midst. The story spread like wildfire. It didn't matter that Common is widely regarded as one of the most positive, peace-loving figures in rap. The Common debacle is clearly illustrative of the opposition's strategy. "Republicans have pounced on any and all associations Obama might make with black people in a way that has the potential to turn white centrist and independent voters against him," says Rose. Fully aware that these voters may see Obama's rap connections as a liability, Jay-Z noted the need for caution. In a 2009 interview with the Guardian he said: "I didn't want the association with rappers and gangsta rappers to hinder anything that [Obama] was doing. I came when I was needed; I didn't make any comments in the press, go too far or put my picture with Obama on MySpace, Twitter, none of that." Deciding that potential swing voters are too important to lose in 2012, Obama appears to have capitulated, at least with respect to rap. When his campaign released its 29-song playlist in February, there was not a single rap song on it. There was a healthy dose of country, though, including two songs each by Sugarland and Darius Rucker. Several months later, the campaign expanded its list, finally adding a couple of rap songs, one of which was K'naan's Wavin' Flag. This addition was probably less of a tribute to rap, however, than a dig at Mitt Romney. Earlier this year, the Republican challenger used Wavin' Flag in his own campaign, but was forced to stop after K'naan objected (and then invited Obama to use it instead). Keeping a safe distance from rap may be a wise strategic move, but putting politics before principle runs counter to the slogan of "change" that Obama ran on, and it has opened him up to some scathing attacks. In his February 2011 song Words I Never Said, Lupe Fiasco raps: "Gaza Strip was getting bombed/ Obama didn't say shit/ That's why I ain't vote for him." A few months later, the musician intensified his criticism in a video interview with CBS: "To me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America." Lupe wasn't alone. In October of last year, British rapper Lowkey released Obama Nation (Part II), on which M1 of Dead Prez calls Obama "a master of disguise, expert at telling lies". Using less incendiary rhetoric, the Seattle-based Blue Scholars nevertheless open their song Hussein (Obama's middle name) with "This ain't the hope or the change you imagined", going on to suggest that Obama has failed to address the US's economic inequality. Obama is hardly the first political leader to reach power and face a backlash from artists who once supported him, but in the absence of the pro-Obama anthems we heard in 2008 or the deep-throated support of legions of performers, the voices of dissent have become especially pronounced. It doesn't help that some of Obama's major fans have changed their tune. Speech, of Arrested Development, who supported Obama in 2008, said earlier this year he was "disillusioned" with the president and would support the Republican Ron Paul instead. Snoop Dogg, another Obama fan in 2008, also seemed to throw some of his support behind Paul when he posted a picture of the politician to his Facebook page with the caption, "Smoke weed every day", a reference to Paul's marijuana-friendly platform. Even those inauguration VIPs Diddy and Jay-Z have tempered their enthusiasm. In early 2011, Diddy told hip-hop magazine the Source, "I love the president like most of us. I just want the president to do better." Jay-Z also acknowledged problems with Obama's first term, admitting that some of the criticism directed at the president has been fair. "Numbers don't lie," he said last July, during a preview of Watch the Throne, his collaboration with Kanye West. "It's fucked up out there. Unemployment is still high." When asked if he feels disappointed with Obama, rapper Nas expresses his continued support for the president but also his disillusionment with the political process that put him in office. "I've been disappointed by politics since the day I was born," he says. "The historic part of him being elected president was got, and everyone was happy about that, and I'm glad I lived to see it. The flipside is, after we get over that, it's back to the politics, and it's something which doesn't have time for people. It's its own animal." This campaign season in the US has exposed this very tension – for rappers and for Obama. For their part, many rap artists are clearly torn between their allegiance to the first black president and their desire to be straight about conditions on the ground. The Wu-Tang Clan's track Never Feel This Pain, released last June, offers a lyrical glimpse of this ambivalence. Referring to Obama, Inspectah Deck says: "I never doubted him. I'm proud of him." However, these lyrics of encouragement are sandwiched between those of frustration. Speaking of his desire for a better life, he says, "I ain't waitin' for Obama," and continues: "Seein' is believin', my vision is blurred, 'cause I ain't seein' nothin' I heard, really nothin' but words." Album reviews have either read this as criticism or endorsement, but it's not that simple. Nor is it for Obama. Facing a struggling economy and a crazy-eyed opposition that has dragged US political discourse to the right, he appears to be striking a centrist tone in order to reach crucial swing voters. This may indeed be the strategy he must follow if he wants a second term, but it's one that situates him firmly within the very political establishment rappers have long held in contempt. Erik Nielson is assistant professor of liberal arts at the University of Richmond, USA
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Greek PM Antonis Samaras to be told to stick to hardline reforms to stay in eurozone as Berlin rejects plea for more time Germany and France have ratcheted up the pressure on the Greek government when they insisted that Athens stick to its hardline austerity plans in order to remain a member of the eurozone. Ahead of meetings with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, in Berlin on Friday and the French president, François Hollande, in Paris on Saturday, the Greek prime minister, Antonis Samaras, was given little hope that the two biggest EU economies were prepared to soften their approach. Hollande, speaking at a meeting with Merkel in Berlin on Thursday night, said he wanted Greece to remain in the single currency but that the recession-stricken country had to carry out the reforms it had promised. Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany's finance minister, flatly rejected Samaras's plea that Greece be given two extra years to put its finances back on track. A decision on whether Athens should be allowed more time will be taken next month by the "troika" – the European Central Bank, the EU and the International Monetary Fund – but Schäuble said it was only six months ago that a second package of help had been provided. "You cannot just say after half a year, all of that is not enough, because then you will never win the confidence of financial markets," he said on Germany's SWR radio. "So more time is not a solution for the problems. The question is how we win back confidence." The existing programme for Greece "must be implemented, and in case of doubt more time means more money", Schäuble continued. "And more money would require a new programme." The Dutch finance minister, Jan Kees de Jager, urged Germany to take a tough line on Greece. "I say to the German government that it is best for it to stick with its strict position," he said in an interview with the FT Deutschland newspaper. "Delaying correct measures helps nobody, not even the Greeks." Data released on Thursday showed Germany was now being affected by the crisis in the 17-nation eurozone and by the slowdown in the wider global economy. A survey by Markit of the business climate pointed to output declining by about 0.5% in the third quarter, putting the eurozone on course for a double-dip recession. The findings for Germany edged down for a seventh successive month to stand at 47 – below the 50 level that marks the cutoff between expansion and contraction. Jonathan Loynes, chief European economist at Capital Economics, said: "Overall, the survey provided yet another reminder that a chronic lack of economic growth in the eurozone will continue to act as a major impediment to efforts to bring the debt crisis to an end." Data from China and the US – the two other powerhouses of the global economy – also showed signs of weakness. The HSBC Flash – or preliminary – China manufacturing PMI (purchasing managers' index )fell to 47.8 in August, its lowest level since November, while the number of Americans applying for first-time jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week. Philip Shaw, an economist at Investec, said: "The indicators taken as a whole indicate a material slowdown in the pace of the world economy."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Chapman, 57, shot Lennon dead outside the Dakota building in Manhattan in 1980 and pleaded guilty to second-degree murder John Lennon's killer has been denied release from prison in his seventh appearance before a parole board. Mark David Chapman, 57, was denied parole after a hearing Wednesday, the state department of corrections said Thursday. The transcript of his latest hearing wasn't immediately released. Chapman shot Lennon in December 1980 outside the Manhattan apartment building where Lennon lived. Chapman was sentenced in 1981 to 20 years to life in prison after pleading guilty to second-degree murder. Lennon was 40. "Despite your positive efforts while incarcerated, your release at this time would greatly undermine respect for the law and tend to trivialize the tragic loss of life which you caused as a result of this heinous, unprovoked, violent, cold and calculated crime," board member Sally Thompson wrote. Chapman can try again for parole in two years. He was transferred in May from the Attica correctional facility to the nearby Wende correctional facility. Both are maximum security. The prison system does not disclose why inmates are transferred. At his previous hearing, Chapman recalled that he had considered shooting Johnny Carson or Elizabeth Taylor instead and said he chose Lennon because he was more accessible, that his apartment building by Central Park "wasn't quite as cloistered." Chapman fired five shots outside the Dakota apartment building on December 8, 1980, hitting Lennon four times in front of his wife, Yoko Ono, and others. The former security guard said his motivation was instant notoriety but that he later realized he made a horrible decision for selfish reasons. "I felt that by killing John Lennon I would become somebody and instead of that I became a murderer, and murderers are not somebodies," Chapman told the board two years ago. Ono, 79, had said two years ago that she was trying to be "practical" in asking that her husband's killer remain behind bars. She said Chapman might be a danger to her, other family members and perhaps even himself.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Rupert Murdoch's second daughter attacks News Corp values in keynote address at Edinburgh television festival Tensions within the world's most powerful media family were dramatically laid bare on Thursday when Elisabeth Murdoch set out her own vision of media leadership, emphasising humanity over profit and criticising her father's News Corporation for operating with an absence of values. Giving the keynote MacTaggart address at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival, Rupert Murdoch's second daughter also explicitly contradicted her brother James, chose to praise the BBC, and argued that the Olympics experience demonstrates that television is a force for storytelling rather than a route to political power. Speaking in public for the first time about the phone-hacking affair, which prompted her to fall out with her brother a year ago, Elisabeth Murdoch said that News Corp had to ask "significant and difficult questions about how some behaviours fell so far short of its values" in the wake of what happened. She said the lesson from the affair was that any organisation needed to "discuss, affirm and institutionalise a rigorous set of values based on an explicit statement of purpose" – in contrast to News Corp's traditional mode of governance based on executives second-guessing what Rupert would do. The cri de coeur from the 44-year-old, who runs Shine Television, the News Corp-owned maker of programmes such as Masterchef and Merlin, will be interpreted as a bid for power at her father's company – although her friends insisted she had no desire to lead the company her father built, which spans from Fox News in the US to the Sun in Britain. Elisabeth Murdoch took aim at her younger brother James in an extended passage that referred to his own controversial MacTaggart lecture given three years ago. That speech ended with James – weeks before the Sun switched to the Conservatives – observing that "the only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit". Elisabeth said that while loss-making media organisations had their independence "massively challenged", her brother's statement nevertheless "left something out". Making little effort to soften the rift with her younger brother, she added: "Profit without purpose is a recipe for disaster." In marked contrast to the dry economic rhetoric preferred by both her father and brother, she said that people needed to "reject the idea that money is the only effective measure of all things or that the free market is the only sorting mechanism" and said that "the absence of purpose" could be "one of the most dangerous own goals for capitalism and for freedom". Her speech contained few references to her father's newspapers, but in a paragraph that referred to the Leveson inquiry, she said that "an unsettling dearth of integrity across so many of our institutions" meant that it was "very difficult to argue for the right outcome, which must be the fierce protection of a free press and light touch media regulation". The 14-page speech was largely written by Murdoch herself – with much of the drafting work taking place during the wet jubilee bank holiday weekend – and with no input from other family members. Instead her husband, Matthew Freud, and a small team of advisers largely from within Shine helped check facts and polish the speech – the first time a woman has given the television industry's signature address since Janet Street-Porter in 1996. Elisabeth is the second oldest of Rupert Murdoch's six children, and the eldest by his second marriage to Anna. While brothers Lachlan and James have at various times worked directly for News Corp in the past decade, Elisabeth only rejoined her father's company last year after it bought Shine in a £290m deal just before the phone-hacking affair broke. She had set up Shine in 2001 and banked about £150m from her father's company once the takeover was completed. But she turned down a seat on the News Corp board in the wake of the Milly Dowler hacking scandal. There was conspicuous praise for the BBC, which frequently airs Shine programmes, in marked contrast to her father and brother. "Let me put it on the record that I am a current supporter of the BBC's universal licence fee," she said. She also praised outgoing director general Mark Thompson for working collaboratively across the television industry. Three years ago, James Murdoch accused the BBC of expansionist plans that had "a chilling effect" on the rest of the British media, but his sister's only critical observation about the national broadcaster was that the incoming director general had "to demonstrate how efficiently that funding is being spent on actual content on behalf of the licence fee payers". There was little overt politicising in Elisabeth Murdoch's speech – another contrast with her brother's effort, which was widely seen as setting the template for Conservative media policy before the most recent general election. But she repeatedly gestured towards liberal values with references to progressive political figures, including "one of my heroes" Vaclav Havel and Nelson Mandela whom she watched walk from prison "through my tears". There was even praise for another former MacTaggart lecturer, the late Dennis Potter, who famously named the cancer that killed him "Rupert". She said she was "firmly with" the television playwright who said "the job of television is to make hearts pound" – a vision of the medium whose core purpose is "to form human connections" as opposed to a vehicle for the exercise of raw political power. But she did defend her decision to sell Shine to her father's company – even if, as she acknowledged, it appeared to be a "no shit, Sherlock" decision – because News Corp was first and foremost a content company which had backed The Simpsons, Glee and the blockbuster films Titantic and Avatar directed by James Cameron. While there was no shortage of criticism for her brother, there was praise for one Murdoch, her father. "My dad had the vision, the will and the sense of purpose to challenge the old world order on behalf of the people," she said, before adding: "But back even then, I understood we were in pursuit of a greater good, a belief in better."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Rupert Murdoch's second daughter attacks News Corp values in keynote address at Edinburgh television festival Tensions within the world's most powerful media family were dramatically laid bare on Thursday when Elisabeth Murdoch set out her own vision of media leadership, emphasising humanity over profit and criticising her father's News Corporation for operating with an absence of values. Giving the keynote MacTaggart address at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival, Rupert Murdoch's second daughter also explicitly contradicted her brother James, chose to praise the BBC, and argued that the Olympics experience demonstrates that television is a force for storytelling rather than a route to political power. Speaking in public for the first time about the phone-hacking affair, which prompted her to fall out with her brother a year ago, Elisabeth Murdoch said that News Corp had to ask "significant and difficult questions about how some behaviours fell so far short of its values" in the wake of what happened. She said the lesson from the affair was that any organisation needed to "discuss, affirm and institutionalise a rigorous set of values based on an explicit statement of purpose" – in contrast to News Corp's traditional mode of governance based on executives second-guessing what Rupert would do. The cri de coeur from the 44-year-old, who runs Shine Television, the News Corp-owned maker of programmes such as Masterchef and Merlin, will be interpreted as a bid for power at her father's company – although her friends insisted she had no desire to lead the company her father built, which spans from Fox News in the US to the Sun in Britain. Elisabeth Murdoch took aim at her younger brother James in an extended passage that referred to his own controversial MacTaggart lecture given three years ago. That speech ended with James – weeks before the Sun switched to the Conservatives – observing that "the only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit". Elisabeth said that while loss-making media organisations had their independence "massively challenged", her brother's statement nevertheless "left something out". Making little effort to soften the rift with her younger brother, she added: "Profit without purpose is a recipe for disaster." In marked contrast to the dry economic rhetoric preferred by both her father and brother, she said that people needed to "reject the idea that money is the only effective measure of all things or that the free market is the only sorting mechanism" and said that "the absence of purpose" could be "one of the most dangerous own goals for capitalism and for freedom". Her speech contained few references to her father's newspapers, but in a paragraph that referred to the Leveson inquiry, she said that "an unsettling dearth of integrity across so many of our institutions" meant that it was "very difficult to argue for the right outcome, which must be the fierce protection of a free press and light touch media regulation". The 14-page, often-humourous speech was largely written by Murdoch herself – with much of the drafting work taking place during the wet jubilee bank holiday weekend – and with no input from other family members. Instead her husband, Matthew Freud, and a small team of advisers largely from within Shine helped check facts and polish the speech – the first time a woman has given the television industry's signature address since Janet Street-Porter in 1996. It was hailed with warm applause and whistles from the audience, by contrast with the BBC-bashing speech of her brother James, three years ago at the same event, which was greeted coolly. Elisabeth is the second oldest of Rupert Murdoch's six children, and the eldest by his second marriage to Anna. While brothers Lachlan and James have at various times worked directly for News Corp in the past decade, Elisabeth only rejoined her father's company last year after it bought Shine in a £290m deal just before the phone-hacking affair broke. She had set up Shine in 2001 and banked about £150m from her father's company once the takeover was completed. But she turned down a seat on the News Corp board in the wake of the Milly Dowler hacking scandal. There was conspicuous praise for the BBC, which frequently airs Shine programmes, in marked contrast to her father and brother. "Let me put it on the record that I am a current supporter of the BBC's universal licence fee," she said. She also praised outgoing director general Mark Thompson for working collaboratively across the television industry. Three years ago, James Murdoch accused the BBC of expansionist plans that had "a chilling effect" on the rest of the British media, but his sister's only critical observation about the national broadcaster was that the incoming director general had "to demonstrate how efficiently that funding is being spent on actual content on behalf of the licence fee payers". There was little overt politicising in Elisabeth Murdoch's speech – another contrast with her brother's effort, which was widely seen as setting the template for Conservative media policy before the most recent general election. But she repeatedly gestured towards liberal values with references to progressive political figures, including "one of my heroes" Vaclav Havel and Nelson Mandela whom she watched walk from prison "through my tears". There was even praise for another former MacTaggart lecturer, the late Dennis Potter, who famously named the cancer that killed him "Rupert". She said she was "firmly with" the television playwright who said "the job of television is to make hearts pound" – a vision of the medium whose core purpose is "to form human connections" as opposed to a vehicle for the exercise of raw political power. But she did defend her decision to sell Shine to her father's company – even if, as she acknowledged, it appeared to be a "no shit, Sherlock" decision – because News Corp was first and foremost a content company which had backed The Simpsons, Glee and the blockbuster films Titantic and Avatar directed by James Cameron. While there was no shortage of criticism for her brother, there was praise for one Murdoch, her father. "My dad had the vision, the will and the sense of purpose to challenge the old world order on behalf of the people," she said, before adding: "But back even then, I understood we were in pursuit of a greater good, a belief in better."
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 950 pages of documents contain internal audits and financial involving Bain Capital and Romney's personal fortune Mitt Romney's offshore financial holdings are coming under new scrutiny following the publication of internal audits and private letters related to his $250m fortune. On Wednesday New York-based website Gawker published 950 pages of documents that paint a complex picture of the Republican presidential candidate's finances. His wealth is held in a convoluted series of holding companies in tax havens including the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg, as well as the US. Romney's investments include stakes in funds invested in high-risk derivatives like the credit default swaps that contributed to the credit crisis, and an investment vehicle that loaned money to the parent firm of the National Enquirer, a racy US tabloid. Romney has been consistently attacked by Democrats for refusing to release more details of his finances, and his offshore accounts have become the subject of attack ads now running across the US. Romney has so far released two years of partial tax returns and furiously denounced Democratic claims that in some years, he paid no tax at all. The documents published by Gawker, some of which have surfaced before, make clear that tax avoidance is a primary aim of some of his investments. Romney and his wife, Ann, are both investors in a Cayman Island-based fund called Bain Capital Fund VIII. There is no suggestion of any illegality. The fund has assets of $3.7bn and according to the documents "intends to conduct it operations so that it will not be engaged in a United States trade or business and, therefore, will not be subject to United States federal income or withholding tax on its income from United States sources". A recent investigation by Vanity Fair magazine concluded that Romney had $30m invested in the Cayman Islands alone. Bain Capital, Romney's former employer, controls at least 138 funds in the Caymans. The Romneys are also investors in Absolute Capital Return Partners, a Delaware-based partnership that uses a technique called equity swapping to avoid tax. Equity swaps allow investors to exchange gains and losses on investments without taking ownership of the asset. The Internal Revenue Service has expressed concerns that swaps may have allowed investors to avoid paying billions of dollars on dividends. Mitt Romney's individual retirement account (IRA) held between $1m and $5m in Absolute Return in 2011 and earned between $100,000 and $1m. In 2006, the Ann Romney Trust held between $100,000 and $250,000, and reported earnings of zero, according to the documents. So far Romney has not commented on the documents. But when he issued his tax returns, Romney's campaign team issued a statement defending his record as a "successful businessman" who complied with the tax code and "has not only added value to our economy through his investment and business activity, but he has paid millions in taxes every year to the US government."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Washington moves to reassure Nato ally, with reports emerging of Pentagon plan to guard or destroy Syria's stockpiles US military and intelligence officials met their Turkish counterparts in Ankara on Thursday to discuss ways to counter the threat of Syrian chemical weapons, as the impact of the civil war continued to spread across Syria's borders. The Ankara meeting came as David Cameron supported Barack Obama's threat of possible military intervention in Syria if the regime used chemical weapons. Reports from the US suggested the Pentagon has plans to dispatch special forces teams to secure or destroy chemical weapon stockpiles if there was a danger they might fall into the hands of extremist groups. Bashar al-Assad's regime acknowledged its long-suspected possession of a stock of chemical weapons last month when a spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, said such weapons would not be used inside Syria but might be if the country was "exposed to external aggression". The American delegation to the Ankara meeting was led by Elizabeth Jones, a high-ranking diplomat, most recently involved in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Turkish government did not name its representatives at the meeting, which was closed to the press, but they included senior security officials. Diplomats said the joint military and intelligence planning session was intended to reassure Turkey that the US would help prevent the conflict spilling across the border and destabilising its Nato ally. The US has hitherto turned down Turkish appeals to help set up a safe haven inside Syria for regime opponents or to establish humanitarian corridors to besieged population centres, but in agreeing to hold the meeting 12 days ago, the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, did not rule out such options if the violence continued to escalate. "Our intelligence services and our military have very important responsibilities and roles to play," Clinton said. "In the horrible event that chemical weapons were used, we discussed what that would mean in terms of response and of humanitarian and medical emergency assistance and what would need to be done to secure those stocks and prevent them being used or falling into the wrong hands," she said. President Obama has said Syria's use or movement of chemical weapons would represent a "red line" for the US, possibly leading Washington to intervene militarily. In a telephone conversation on Wednesday night, according a Downing Street spokesperson, Cameron and Obama "agreed that the use – or threat – of chemical weapons was completely unacceptable and would force them to revisit their approach so far". The Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon had contingency plans to protect or destroy chemical weapons stockpiles if they were left unguarded or in danger of falling into the hands of the armed opposition, or extremist groups linked to al-Qaida or Hezbollah. The paper, quoting unnamed officials, says "securing the sites would probably involve stealthy raids by special operations teams trained to handle such weapons, and precision air strikes to incinerate the chemicals without dispersing them in the air". "US satellites and drone aircraft already maintain partial surveillance of the sites," it adds. An assessment by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London said Syria had manufactured mustard gas, a blistering agent, and a nerve gas called sarin. The report said Damascus was also alleged to have develop a more powerful and lingering nerve agent known as VX. "I don't think Assad will use them," Dina Esfandiary, an IISS security analyst, said. "He is well aware it would be the end of his rule. What drives urgency, and what frightens bordering states, is the risk they will fall into the hands of non-state actors who would not be as deterrable as Assad." Inside Syria, government forces moved into Daraya, a mostly anti-regime town on the south-westerly edge of Damascus. The army bombarded the area with artillery and helicopter gunships for 24 hours before sending in troops, according to opposition sources. Fighting also continued for a fourth day in the Lebanese port city of Tripoli after the collapse of a ceasefire between Sunni and Shia militias, a further sign that the 17-month civil conflict is becoming steadily harder to contain. The fighting was sparked by tit-for-tat abductions that began inside Syria, where the ruling Allawite minority has strong historical ties with Lebanese Shia groups.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Britain should withdraw 'threat' to storm building in Knightsbridge, say Ecuadorean officials Ecuadorean officials have said that Britain should renounce its "threat" to storm the country's London embassy, and that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could remain inside the building for as long as he wanted – "two centuries" if necessary. The officials said there had been no contact with the Foreign Office since last Thursday, when Ecuador's president Rafael Correa announced he was granting Assange asylum. Ecuador was keen to resume negotiations with the UK, the officials said, but added that William Hague should now take back a threat to enter the embassy as "an indication of good faith". Ecuadorean diplomatic sources also insisted there had been no secret deal to grant Assange asylum. They said Assange simply turned up at the front door two months ago at midday and rang the bell. The Ecuadorean ambassador, Ana Alban, was forced to dash home to fetch a blow-up mattress for Assange to sleep on. Since he took up residence, the embassy had got a bigger fridge, the sources said. The UK last week gave a written warning to Quito saying that it could invoke the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 to arrest Assange inside the Knightsbridge embassy. This prompted a furious response from Quito. Hague later clarified that the FCO was not threatening to "storm an embassy". On Thursday, however, an Ecuadorean diplomatic source said: "The threat hasn't been withdrawn." The source suggested that the police presence around the building was excessive, with the embassy under siege at one point last week and still surrounded by dozens of policemen now. "It was amazing. There used to be four or six policemen since Mr Assange got here. Suddenly there were three trucks of police surrounding us. There were police on the interior stairs. There was even one in the window of the toilet. It was clearly a message." Ecuadorean officials said they still believed a compromise over the Assange case was possible. They said Sweden and the UK should give political assurances that the WikiLeaks founder, who faces allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden, would not be re-extradited from there to the US. Failing that, they said Britain should grant him safe passage so he could fly to Ecuador. There seems little prospect that the UK will agree to this. The Foreign Office says it is legally obliged to extradite Assange to Sweden. Both sides now appear to be settling in for the long haul. Asked how long Assange might remain at the embassy, an Ecuadorean official said: "However long it takes. Eight years. Two centuries." The official said it was ridiculous to suggest diplomats would try to smuggle him out. On Thursday the FCO said in a statement: "We have made clear we are committed to a diplomatic solution. "We will be sending a formal communication today to the Ecuadorean embassy. We will not go into the detail of private discussions." On Wednesday the news agency Reuters, citing US government sources, said Washington had issued no criminal charges against Assange. His supporters claim the US is plotting to extradite and to execute him. Obama administration officials remain divided over the wisdom of prosecuting Assange, Reuters said, and the likelihood of US criminal charges against him is probably receding rather than growing. On Friday foreign ministers from across Latin America will meet in Washington to discuss the Assange case. A draft resolution from the Organisation of American States calls on the UK to comply with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and to respect the "inviolability" of the Ecuadorean embassy. The Foreign Office has been lobbying South American states to abstain. On Thursday, however, one Ecuadorean official predicted the FCO's efforts were doomed, adding: "Most Latin American countries are working as one [on this]." On Sunday Assange made his first public appearance since walking into the embassy in June, addressing crowds of journalists and supporters from a first-floor balcony window, with Metropolitan police officers a few feet below him on the pavement. He called on President Obama to abandon his alleged "witch-hunt" against WikiLeaks. Assange also thanked several other Latin American countries for their support – implicitly warning Britain that any dispute with Ecuador could rapidly snowball into a conflict with the entire region. He said nothing about allegations by two Swedish women that he sexually assaulted them. TodayOn Thursday Ecuadorean officials denied that it had been a provocative move to allow Assange to use embassy property to berate the United States. "It was the balcony or a window," one said. "He had to deliver a message. A lot of people were wanting to know what he looked like. They wanted an image. It had political value." The officials also shrugged off criticism of Ecuador's record on press freedom, which has come under increasing scrutiny since Assange sought asylum. "Walk around the streets of Quito, hear the radio and watch TV, and see what some journalists say about the government. There is a lot of freedom," one source said. Scotland Yard has declined to comment on the policing operation at the embassy, while the FCO has said the letter sent to Ecuadorean authorities on Wednesday of last week was not menacing and that the rights of the country's officials would continue to be respected by the government. mflx
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Britain should withdraw 'threat' to storm building in Knightsbridge, say Ecuadorean officials Ecuadorean officials have said that Britain should renounce its "threat" to storm the country's London embassy, and that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could remain inside the building for as long as he wanted – "two centuries" if necessary. The officials said there had been no contact with the Foreign Office since last Thursday, when Ecuador's president Rafael Correa announced he was granting Assange asylum. Ecuador was keen to resume negotiations with the UK, the officials said, but added that William Hague should now take back a threat to enter the embassy as "an indication of good faith". Ecuadorean diplomatic sources also insisted there had been no secret deal to grant Assange asylum. They said Assange simply turned up at the front door two months ago "at midday" and rang the bell. The Ecuadorean ambassador, Ana Alban, was forced to dash home to fetch a blow-up mattress for Assange to sleep on. Since he took up residence, the embassy had got a bigger fridge, the sources said. The UK last week gave a written warning to Quito saying that it could invoke the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 to arrest Assange inside the Knightsbridge embassy. This prompted a furious response from Quito. Hague later clarified that the FCO was not threatening to "storm an embassy". On Thursday, however, an Ecuadorian diplomatic source said: "The threat hasn't been withdrawn." The source suggested that the police presence around the building was excessive, with the embassy under siege at one point last week and still surrounded by dozens of policemen now. "It was amazing. There used to be four or six policemen since Mr Assange got here. Suddenly there were three trucks of police surrounding us. There were police on the interior stairs. There was even one in the window of the toilet. It was clearly a message." Ecuadorean officials said they still believed a compromise over the Assange case was possible. They said Sweden and the UK should give political assurances that the WikiLeaks founder, who faces allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden, would not be re-extradited from there to the US. Failing that, they said Britain should grant him "safe passage" so he could fly to Ecuador. There seems little prospect the UK will agree to this. The Foreign Office says it is legally obliged to extradite Assange to Sweden. Both sides now appear to be settling in for the long haul. Asked how long Assange might remain at the embassy, an Ecuadorean official said: "However long it takes. Eight years. Two centuries." The official said it was ridiculous to suggest diplomats would try to smuggle him out. On Thursday the FCO said in a statement: "We have made clear we are committed to a diplomatic solution. "We will be sending a formal communication today to the Ecuadorean embassy. We will not go into the detail of private discussions." On Wednesday the news agency Reuters, citing US government sources, said Washington had issued no criminal charges against Assange. His supporters claim the US is plotting to extradite and to execute him. Obama administration officials remain divided over the wisdom of prosecuting Assange, Reuters said, and the likelihood of US criminal charges against him is probably receding rather than growing. On Friday foreign ministers from across Latin America will meet in Washington to discuss the Assange case. A draft resolution from the Organisation of American States calls on the UK to comply with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and to respect the "inviolability" of the Ecuadorean embassy. The Foreign Office has been lobbying South American states to abstain. On Thursday, however, one Ecuadorean official predicted the FCO's efforts were doomed, adding: "Most Latin American countries are working as one [on this]." On Sunday Assange made his first public appearance since walking into the embassy in June, addressing crowds of journalists and supporters from a first-floor balcony window, with Metropolitan police officers a few feet below him on the pavement. He called on President Obama to abandon his alleged "witch-hunt" against WikiLeaks. Assange also thanked several other Latin American countries for their support – implicitly warning Britain that any dispute with Ecuador could rapidly snowball into a conflict with the entire region. He said nothing about allegations by two Swedish women that he sexually assaulted them. On Thursday Ecuadorean officials denied that it had been a provocative move to allow Assange to use embassy property to berate the United States. "It was the balcony or a window," one said. "He had to deliver a message. A lot of people were wanting to know what he looked like. They wanted an image. It had political value." The officials also shrugged off criticism of Ecuador's record on press freedom, which has come under increasing scrutiny since Assange sought asylum. "Walk around the streets of Quito, hear the radio and watch TV, and see what some journalists say about the government. There is a lot of freedom," one source said. Scotland Yard has declined to comment on the policing operation at the embassy, while the FCO has said the letter sent to Ecuadorean authorities on Wednesday of last week was not menacing and that the rights of the country's officials would continue to be respected by the government.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Due for release on September 11, account written by retired special operations member has not been vetted by Pentagon The Pentagon knew nothing about the book by one of its own until it saw the press release. But the Obama administration quickly took notice of the promise, or threat, by a former US special operations soldier who was in the room when Osama Bin Laden was killed to "set the record straight" in a first-hand and unvetted account of the mission to get the al-Qaida leader to be published just weeks before the presidential election. The publisher, a subsidiary of Penguin, has said little about the book, No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama Bin Laden, other than that the author is a former member of Navy Seal Team Six who "was one of the first men through the door on the third floor of the terrorist leader's hideout and was present at his death". It promises a "blow-by-blow narrative of the assault" beginning with the helicopter crash that could have ended the author's life straight "through to the radio call confirming Bin Laden's death". Penguin said the account is "an essential piece of modern history". But the book will land in the midst of an election in which Republicans, concerned that Bin Laden's death has neutralised attempts to paint Barack Obama as weak on national security, are accusing the president of overstating his role in the raid for political advantage. No Easy Day is to be published under a pen name, Mark Owen. But Fox News said it has established the true identity of the author, naming him and saying he is a 36-year-old from Alaska who also took part in a Seal raid in 2009 that rescued the captain of an American merchant ship seized by Somali pirates. He retired from the military last year. The book has been a closely held secret in the publishing world, and the announcement that it will be released on September 11, the 11th anniversary of the al-Qaida attacks on the US, caught the Pentagon and intelligence services off guard. Tommy Vietor, a national security council spokesman said: "We learned about this book today from press reports. We haven't reviewed it and don't know what it says." The US navy spokesman, rear admiral John Kirby, said that the former Seal had not sought authorisation to write the account. "The author did not seek Navy support/approval for this book. We have no record of any request from an author associated with that book company," he said. The navy warned that the Seal could be open to prosecution if he reveals classified information. While other former Navy Seals have written books about the Bin Laden raid none was involved first hand. The publisher said that the book has been checked by lawyers and found to be "without risk to national security". The author has said little about the book's contents other than that it is about the sacrifices made by members of special operations forces and that he hopes it will inspire young men to join the Navy Seals. Whatever its tone, the account is likely to be caught up in attempts by a group of right wing former military and intelligence officers with ties to the Tea Party movement and Republican party to accuse Obama of claiming too much credit for hunting down Bin Laden. The group, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, last week released a 22-minute video accusing the president of leaking intelligence and military secrets – including the role of a Pakistani doctor in finding the al-Qaida leader, details of virus attacks on Iran's nuclear programme and Obama's part in deciding a "kill list" of targets of drone strikes in Pakistan – for political gain. Several former Central Intelligence Agency and US military officers appear in the video saying that Obama is wrongly claiming credit for Bin Laden's death although there is no evidence they have any special knowledge of the situation. The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, accused the officers of exploiting their uniforms for political ends. "If someone uses the uniform, whatever uniform, for partisan politics, I am disappointed because I think it does erode that bond of trust we have with the American people," he told Fox News. The Obama campaign has dismissed the attacks as reminiscent of the Swift boat campaign to smear the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry. A group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, led a well funded and effective attack on Kerry's record of military service on board Swift boats in Vietnam.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | How GB made it in America with Harry, the Boris Johnson of the royal family Like sexy female students jumping on A-level results day or sexy muddy females at a festival, one of the most enduring cliches in the British media is that if a Briton achieves an American accolade, it is not just a triumph for Briton but Britain. One sees this when a Briton wins an Academy Award ("The British are coming!") and, conversely, when a Briton fails to "break America". This latter occurrence sparks up collective shame and self-deprecation, that old inferiority complex flaring up again with accompanying mockery in the press that Oasis, or Robbie Williams, or whoever had the temerity in the first place to try to make it in America. But today's subject was never one to be cowed by the risk of humiliation or regret. No sirree bob. So he headed west, with nothing more than a vague dream of good times and a reservation at the Wynn Encore Resort in Las Vegas in his pocket, his pinking face shiny with anticipation. He strolled into the town of bright lights and dashed dreams and, like the cunning neophyte that he is, he pitched himself up at Schwab's Pharmacy or, that is, the modern-day equivalent thereof, a hotel suite riddled with cameraphones, where he would be discovered. And discovered he most certainly was. Because he didn't worry about what others thought, or what tomorrow might hold, or what that stranger was doing in the corner with a mobile phone, this youngster attained the highest accolade in this modern age, one that doesn't capture the zeitgeist – it is the zeitgeist: "PRINCE HARRY NAKED PHOTOS DURING VEGAS RAGER – EXCLUSIVE." Harry made tmz.com! That taste you taste, Great Britain? That is the taste of validation! The British are com – oh, um. Wait. Let's scratch that one, actually. Tmz.com is the phenomenally successful if linguistically challenged LA-based gossip website that has made quite a name for itself for breaking celebrity news, usually with the help of cameraphone photos and suspiciously detailed updates from hospitals and police stations in the Los Angeles area. For a certain kind of celebrity, tmz.com is the New York Times, Wikipedia, the Nasdaq stock market and the Bible in one heavily exclamation-marked form. To appear on tmz.com is, in a very particular sense, to mean you have made it in America. And now, nuzzling up against the glitzy likes of Lindsay Lohan's dad and Chris Brown on tmz.com's roll call, is none other than the royal spare. Harry – reassuringly unchanged by a military career – recently flew to Vegas for a holiday with his chums, Lord Toffy von Browne Nose and Bunny Boobsulike. The chronology of his activities there is a little fuzzy so consider the following a montage (screenwriters for The Hangover 3, you're welcome): "Jennifer Lopez's pool party", "strip billiards", "£1,000-a-day VIP bungalow", "swam a race against Ryan Lochte". Let's deal with the elements one by one. Churchill and Roosevelt united during the second world war. Reagan and Thatcher waltzing at his inaugural ball in 1984. Blair and Bush strolling through a snowy Camp David. Truly, the pictorial history of the special relationship between America and Britain says as much about the times as it does about the leaders. Now we can add a new equally telling image to this illustrious roll call: the prince and the Olympic champion and general American cliche Lochte swimming partially clothed in a nightclub's pool at 3am. It was here that innocent young Harry was to learn the first of his valuable lessons about America: unlike in Jamaica, where Usain Bolt let the prince "win" in a race against him, in America, competition is all and Lochte made sure he beat that mofo prince ("Jeah!") (The second lesson is that if you pick up randoms in a Vegas hotel, at least one of them is likely to take photos of you on their phone and flog 'em to tmz.com.). To the MGM Grand Hotel bungalows. Now, it happens that on my one trips to Vegas I stayed at that hotel and while I resisted partaking in the bungalows myself I do remember them well: they were generally full of pneumatic women in hot-pink bikinis and tattooed men of an indeterminate age drinking pitchers of cocktails and grinding to Usher songs from about 10am onwards. In retrospect, it reflects worse on me than it does on Harry that I did not foresee his eventual destination. And now, the nekkid photos, which have presumably put an end to Alison Jackson's career. These were apparently taken in a hotel room during a game of "strip billiards". I haven't ascertained what "strip billiards" is yet beyond that it is definitely not, contrary to rumour, and despite the sound of its name, an American news broadcaster ("And now, the traffic with Strip Billiards.") Nor am I sure if the red star on the royal bare backside is a coy editorial choice of tmz's or that's just how royal arses come. Judging from tmz's previous form, the latter seems more likely. The final photos from Harry's My Holiday Facebook album consist of him in Los Angeles looking at a phone with an expression anyone who has ever had an especially bad morning after would recognise. Although that's only because he didn't spend long enough in America. If he had, he'd have known that naked photos on a website are the way some of the country's more illustrious careers were kickstarted although, really, if he'd wanted to shoot to the A* list he should have provided a sex tape to boot and then he could have sat in the VVVIP area with Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton. And lo, the aftermath. Above the near-deafening noise of Sarah Ferguson, Prince Andrew, Diana, Prince Edward VII and various other royals dead and alive sighing with relief that cameraphones did not exist in their day, one can hear the UK press gnashing its teeth at the legal strictures preventing it from publishing the nudie pics. Thus, it opts for one of two paths: exploitation or prurience in the guise of disapproval. For the former, the Sun instead mocks up a photo on the front page featuring a naked journalist called Harry pressed against a similarly unclothed intern, proffering a new interpretation to the term "work experience". The Daily Mail's Amanda Platell types Pulitzer-winning sentences such as: "No one is suggesting he took part in an orgy, but …" and "what a tragedy it would be if he becomes another royal wastrel." "Becomes"? Good Lord, does anyone ever expect anything more from the spare? Unfortunately for these papers, clutching their handkerchiefs to hide their drool, readers are unlikely to echo their concerns. The truth is, as royals go, Harry does pretty well for a second son and he's the only one any mainstream voyeur would wish to see naked. He is the Boris Johnson of the royal family, a buffoon whose every antic only improves his public standing. Particularly when that standing takes place naked in a Vegas hotel room, simultaneously watching TV, shielding a naked young lady and cupping his balls. His royal standing has never looked better. Seriously, do you know what Vinnie Jones would do for such US product placement? Britain, congratulations.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | South African ambassador summoned over move to label items as coming from occupied Palestinian territories not settlements A diplomatic row has been growing as Israel summoned the South African ambassador to explain his country's decision to label products from West Bank settlements as coming from the occupied Palestinian territories. Ismail Coovadia would meet with officials at the foreign ministry, Israeli media reported. South Africa claims the decision on labelling conforms with its existing policy on the occupied territories. "This is in line with South Africa's stance that recognises the 1948 borders delineated by the United Nations and does not recognise occupied territories beyond these borders as being part of the state of Israel," said Jimmy Manyi, a government spokesman. The trade and industry minister, Rob Davies, added that the move was not a boycott of Israeli products, but aimed at helping "South Africans who do not support Israel, but who do support the Palestinians, to identify those products". There was an angry response from the Israeli government, which described the move as "blatant discrimination based on national and political distinction". Yigal Palmor, a foreign ministry spokesman, said: "This kind of discrimination has not been imposed – and rightly so – in any other case of national, territorial or ethnic conflict. What is totally unacceptable is the use of tools which, by essence, discriminate and single out, fostering a general boycott." He added: "Such exclusion and discrimination bring to mind ideas of racist nature which the government of South Africa, more than any other, should have wholly rejected." The South African Jewish Board of Deputies said it was "outraged" by the decision to re-label goods. Zev Krengel, its president, said: "It is the firm belief of the Jewish communal leadership that the proposed measures are discriminatory, divisive, inconsistent with South African trade policy and seriously flawed from both an administrative and procedural point of view. "At bottom, they are believed to be motivated not by technical trade concerns but by political bias against the state of Israel. All attempts to discuss these concerns, however, have come to nothing." South Africa's relations with Israel have been strained for years. In 2010 the archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu likened the treatment of Palestinians to the injustice of racial apartheid, urging a South African opera company to cancel its tour of the Israel. Last week South Africa's deputy foreign minister Ebrahim Ebrahim recommended against visiting Israel. "Israel is an occupier country which is oppressing Palestine, so it's not proper for South Africans to associate with Israel," he told City Press newspaper. "We discourage people from going there except if it has to do with the peace process." An international boycott of South Africa in 1980s was a crucial factor in forcing the apartheid regime to eventually surrender power. Israel was one of the last countries to sign up to the campaign.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Controversial program risks alienating Muslims and hasn't generated a single lead, but NYPD steadfastly defends it When US army reservist Farhaj Hassan heard news of a shooting at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, his first instinct was to email three mosques in his home town of Newark. "I wanted to check on them to ask if they have strong relationships with the local police." Hassan, 35, said, at a recent meeting with the Guardian there. "Work with the cops. Work with the cops. That has always been my belief," Hassan said. "A two-way dialogue is necessary for everyone's security." That belief is one of the factors which has motivated Hassan, along with seven other individuals and organisations to file a lawsuit against the NYPD's covert program of surveillance in American Muslim communities. It is now a year since a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative series by the Associated Press blew the cover off the secret program by NYPD's little-known demographics unit in New York and three surrounding states, that begun in early 2002. The reports showed the deep and pervasive extent of the program, with the NYPD singling out and tracking American Muslim communities in New York City, Newark and other areas. Mosques, shops, restaurants and even student associations were all the target of surveillance activity on a scale that left many calling the program discriminatory and tantamount to racial profiling. Throughout the past year however, New York City authorities including the NYPD and mayor Michael Bloomberg have steadfastly defended the measures, deeming them necessary to keep New Yorkers safe from terrorist attacks – even though this week it was revealed that the program had netted no arrests, nor even a single lead, in six years. A year on, the public knows little about the full scope of the program and what areas it is carried out in. The NYPD's chief spokesman, deputy commissioner Paul Browne, would not respond to questions from the Guardian, sent to him more than a week ago. Several Muslim organisations have accused the NYPD of treating community concerns over the past year with "a wall of silence". New Jersey congressman Rush Holt, an outspoken critic of the program told the Guardian he found NYPD's conduct "completely unapologetic and shameless". Omar Bajwa, the Muslim chaplain at Yale University, one of the campuses where the Muslim Students' Association was spied on by NYPD, says the organisation's nonchalance to questions from the community is "incredibly arrogant". The NYPD's methods and manner were alienating "future leaders", he said. "They need to apologize to the Muslim community, make an honest disclosure of facts, and seek advice on how they should reform their intelligence program." 'There is a serious effort to look into this'While several elected politicians, including in Hassan's home state of New Jersey, have criticised the NYPD's program, few have successfully challenged it. Newark's Democratic mayor, Cory Booker, reiterated his opposition, telling the Guardian in a statement: "These activities deeply disturbed me. The only provocation for this surveillance was religious belief, which strikes against some of my fundamental ideals as an American. I still hold these positions." But Booker did not respond to questions about whether the program was continuing in his jurisdiction, and if he had raised his concerns directly with the NYPD. Last September, Holt, who served as chairman of the House permanent select committee on intelligence from 2007 to 2010, wrote to US attorney general Eric Holder, asking the department of justice to investigate NYPD's program. Holt said he has followed up on his letter with phone calls and emails through the past year. "But I have got no indication that there is a serious effort to look into this, which does not reflect well on the department of justice." It is this nonchalance from the NYPD as well as authorities with powers of oversight, say Hassan and his lawyer, Glenn Katon from the California-based body Muslim Advocates, which made filing a lawsuit unavoidable. Hassan joined the US army a few days before 9/11. "I grew up watching Mash on TV and wanted to serve. … I was looking for that sense of camaraderie." He was deployed to Iraq from 2003 to 2004, where he served in military intelligence. He was at home in Newark last August when the AP broke the story about the NYPD's surveillance of Muslim communities. His first reaction was amazement and shock at how deep the program went. When he subsequently learned that police had watched the mosques and establishments in Newark he frequented with his mother, he was struck by how misplaced the NYPD program seemed. "If they really knew who the congregants were they would know these people have other things to worry about – earning their living, getting by, giving their kids a decent education. … Committing heinous acts against the US is the last thing on their mind," Hassan said. Hassan, currently a graduate student and a reservist who spends a weekend every month drilling with his unit at a military base in Bristol, says what makes him most uncomfortable is that "law-abiding Muslims who are going about their daily life, doing deeply private and constitutionally guaranteed activities such as praying should be suspected merely because they are Muslims". Are the AP's findings 'just the tip of the iceberg'?Katon says his plaintiffs, who include the council of imams in New Jersey, have noted a fall in number of devotees coming to pray after knowing their mosques places of worship featured on NYPD lists. Small businesses featured in NYPD documents have also noticed a decline in customers, Katon said. "Perfumes and lotions are not specific to the Muslim community, and our plaintiffs have had customers calling up and saying: 'I saw a report in the newspaper and I am not comfortable coming to your shop any more.'" While the lawsuit challenges the program's operation in New Jersey, any court ruling would have wider geographical effects. Two New York-based organisations – the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council for American-Islamic Relations – also told the Guardian they were considering legal remedies, among other measures, in an attempt to force the NYPD to end its surveillance program. Hassan says: "We do not know if the public criticism has altered, increased or decreased NYPD's spying on Muslims. I fear that what the AP reports revealed might just be the tip of the iceberg."
The emotional impact of knowing one is under surveillance while going about one's day-to-day life is harder to see or measure. Every American Muslim the Guardian interviewed for this report used strong words – 'a sense of chill', 'dread', 'public trauma', 'deep worry', 'severe mistrust' – to describe how they still felt about NYPD's program. Congressman Holt said: "The sense of siege American Muslims experienced in the aftermath of 9/11 had just started to lift about two years ago, when the news of NYPD's secret program reinstated it all over again." When asked how knowing they were being spied on by the NYPD impacted his wards, Yale's Muslim chaplain Bajwa said: "I know of students who have felt embarrassed or a lowering of self-esteem. Some stopped participating in group activities and felt conscious about being publicly Muslim." He added: "I do not want to exaggerate the effect, but female Muslim students in particular have grown more reticent, including not speaking up in class, to not draw any attention to themselves." NYPD hears from a Muslim advisory councilDaisy Khan, executive director of the non-profit American Society for Muslim Advancement, said that her desire to stem such responses of under-confidence and low self-esteem in fellow Muslims has pushed her to join NYPD's recently constituted Muslim advisory council. "The obligation is on us American Muslims to ensure these policies become policies of the past. We can do that only if we are confident to speak out," Khan said in a recent interview at ASMA's office on Manhattan's Upper West Side. The eight-member council, which met for the first time this July, was set up for Bloomberg and Kelly to hear from representatives of Muslim communities. Khan says its establishment is an acknowledgement by the authorities that they have made mistakes. It is also an opening that the community must seize, she argued. "It is important that in the eyes of the public we are not seen as a community in opposition with law enforcement authorities, and so we must engage." Imam Khalil Abdur-Rashid, the imam at Brooklyn's Iqra mosque and another member of the council, said he was willing to be a part of this dialogue with the NYPD as long as "it does not seem like a token gesture from the authorities". Deeply critical of the surveillance program – he dubbed it "not public safety but public trauma in the lives of law-abiding citizens" – Rashid said that efforts like the lawsuit were also needed since multiple ways of approaching the issue would make the effort to end such discriminatory policies more effective. According to Khan, the council will get involved in a range of efforts, from organising town hall meetings between city authorities and New York's Muslim communities to vetting material for police trainings, and countering the theological arguments of religious extremists. But for now, there is little public acknowledgement from the NYPD or city authorities that its surveillance program, as it exists in its current form, needs to be altered or ended. Holt's great worry is that the program, by singling out one religious minority, might be actually making Americans less, not more safe. The congressman argued: "In this era of decentralised terror, if you alienate an entire community, you are unlikely to get their co-operation in intelligence gathering." "As I see it", Holt said, "profiling is a substitute for thinking." Hassan said he had just one question for those who supported NYPD's surveillance program: "If we say okay to this now, then what will we see next?"
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2012 media narratives have so far been more overwhelmingly negative than almost any other US contest, researchers find President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are both being portrayed in an overwhelmingly negative light as they battle each other in America's 2012 presidential election, a new survey of media coverage has revealed. The result has been one of the most negative electoral contests in recent memory in which Obama is widely painted as having failed to kickstart any meaningful economic recovery, but Romney is described as a rich, elitist "vulture" capitalist out of touch with the struggles of ordinary Americans. A survey by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has found that the "master narrative" of Obama is negative in 72% of coverage about his character and record. But while that may worry Democrats nostalgic for 2008's message of hope and change, there is little consolation for Republicans. The study also found that Romney's master narratives were negative in some 71% of coverage of the former Massachusetts governor. PEJ director Tom Rosenstiel said the results were a surprise, especially as external events had so far played little role in either campaign, meaning the negativity was more deliberate than any sort of reaction to an outside crisis. "It is just nastier than normal," said Rosenstiel, pointing out that the 2004 contest – which was also very negative – had been marked by dramatic external events like the war in Iraq and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The study looked at some 800 stories from 50 major news outlets and examined 1,772 assessments of the candidates. It found that 36% of all assertions about Obama suggested that the president had not done enough to help the economy. Meanwhile 14% of assertions about Romney were that he was a vulture capitalist, and 13% were that he was a rich elitist. "The survey shows that the press has delivered voters a remarkably negative story for both Obama and Romney. The negative theme about Obama's record is winning out right now. At the same time so is the argument that Mitt Romney is a callous businessman and a wealthy elitist," said PEJ associate director Mark Jurkowitz. Rosenstiel believes the reasons for this are varied. The rise of the internet and each campaign's rapid response teams means narratives of attack and defense are all too dominant in the modern 24 hour news cycle. At the same time newsrooms of traditional media outlets have shrunk in size, meaning that partisan voices, such as surrogates or campaign officials from each side, find it easier to dominate coverage that has to be produced quickly. "The campaigns understand the weaknesses of the media system," Rosenstiel said. But it is not just that the campaigns themselves are being negative. Though both sides have been markedly aggressive in their attacks on each other, their positive messages have often failed to be reported by the press. For example, despite major efforts by the Obama campaign to show him as caring about ordinary Americans, just 3% of press coverage reflected that assertion. The result is a marked difference from the 2008 campaign, when Obama beat Republican Senator John McCain. In that contest only 31% of coverage about Obama reflected a negative narrative, with McCain coming in at 57% In recent elections only the coverage of President George W Bush in 2004 was more negative than either Obama or Romney this year. In that contest some 75% of narratives in the press about Bush were negative, though that did not stop him from winning re-election.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | No major damage reported in Dominican Republic and Haiti, but woman in Puerto Rico dies in accident preparing for storm Tropical storm Isaac hit at the Dominican Republic and Haiti on Thursday, and was expected to gain strength as it moved over the Caribbean. No major damage was reported, but authorities in Puerto Rico said an elderly woman died in an accident while preparing for the storm. Forecasters said it may cause bad weather for the Republican national convention in Tampa next week. It was likely to approach Hispaniola, the island shared by the Dominican Republic and Haiti, as a hurricane late Thursday or early Friday after intensifying over the warm waters of the Caribbean. Isaac was predicted to move on to Cuba as a tropical storm, then possibly head by Monday to Florida, where the Republicans will be gathering to nominate Mitt Romney for the presidency. In the eastern Caribbean, many seafront bars and restaurants remained open Wednesday night as lightning and thunder crackled and choppy surf slapped against piers and seawalls. The storm was 225 miles south-east of Puerto Rico early on Thursday, with maximum sustained winds near 40mph. Isaac was moving west near 13mph, the US National Hurricane Center said. At the bar of the Fort Young Hotel in Dominica's coastal capital of Roseau, a few tourists and locals drank cold beer and chatted over the sound of white-crested waves outside. "The skies were very black and cloudy most of the day, but it's been pretty quiet so far. Some rain, very little wind," bartender Raymond Reynolds said Wednesday at the 71-room hotel on the jagged, densely forested island. "We've been through this before." In the foothills of Dominica's Morne Aux Diables volcano, Tess Hunneybell, owner of Manico River Eco Resort, said most of Wednesday was "weirdly quiet" after she and others wrapped the resort's signature treehouses in tarpaulin and nailed shut louvre doors. As a precaution, Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit urged people to stay home from work. "I don't want lives to lost," he said. As the storm approached, military authorities at the US base in Guantánamo Bay, canceled several days of pretrial hearings in the case of five prisoners charged in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They also planned to evacuate about 200 people, including legal teams and relatives of the 9/11 victims. In the US Virgin Islands, along the harbor in St Croix's historic town of Christiansted, piers normally lined with pleasure boats were empty Wednesday. Business owners stacked sandbags around the doorways of pastel-colored buildings. Schools and government offices in St Croix were ordered to remain closed Thursday. St Kitts had announced similar closures Wednesday. With the storm expected to pass just south of Puerto Rico on Thursday, governor Luis Fortuno declared a state of emergency and activated the National Guard. He also canceled classes and closed government agencies. Federal officials closed the popular San Felipe del Morro castle in Old San Juan.
Authorities in Puerto Rico reported that a 75-year-old woman died Wednesday in the northern city of Bayamon when she fell from a second-floor balcony while filling a barrel with water in preparation for the storm. The US coastguard closed all ports in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands to incoming commercial ships and warned that all commercial vessels bigger than 200 gross tons must leave or obtain permission to remain in port. Downpours drenched the French island of Guadeloupe on Wednesday, said local chief meteorologist Norbert Aouizerats. Officials warned of swollen rivers and flooding in Martinique, where authorities urged people in low-lying areas to evacuate. In the Dominican Republic, authorities banned boats from entering its waters and warned of heavy rains from Thursday through Saturday. Liat airline and American Eagle canceled flights to islands including Dominica, the US Virgin Islands, Guadeloupe and Martinique. On the island of Vieques, just east of Puerto Rico, people prepared for the government to temporarily shut off power. Glenn Curry, an owner of Bananas Guesthouse, said he closed the restaurant and would move guests to a higher floor. "I don't think this is going to be a major storm, but it's going to be noisy and unpleasant for a few hours," he said. In the meantime, another tropical depression was moving across the Atlantic. The depression had maximum sustained winds near 35 mph early on Thursday and was expected to become a tropical storm later Thursday or on Friday. The depression was centered about 1,110 miles west of the Cape Verde Islands and moving west-northwest near 16 mph.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sentenced to death in 1993 for a crime he insists he didn't commit, Reggie Clemons tells Ed Pilkington about preparing for imminent death, and why America's death penalty is 'poisonous' Loading... Reggie Clemons knows what it's like to prepare for imminent death. In 2008, he came within 12 days of execution by lethal injection. In May that year he was issued with a death warrant and for the next 18 days he sat and waited in his prison cell, a short dead-man-walking distance from the death chamber. It was, he says, "a real strange time." "Each day was real slow. You're paying attention to each and every little detail – every crack on the floor, how your shoe strings are laying that day – because these might be the very last moments of your life." When his mother Vera Thomas came to see him, he was forced to talk to her from behind a thick bullet-proof glass window, with his hands cuffed to his waist and his feet shackled, even though he was in the middle of a maximum security prison from which there was no chance of escape. Mother and son were put in a visitors' room that just happened to be located next to the death chamber. As Clemons looked out at his mother through the glass, he could see behind her the door through which he knew he would soon be passing. He had plenty of time during those 18 days to think about the specifics of what would happen to him once he walked through that door and was strapped onto the gurney. "The first drug is supposed to put you to sleep," he says, referring to the beginning of the lethal injection process. "The second drug paralyses you so that you can't move, so you can't talk or speak or anything. And then the third drug is like injecting fire into your veins, because what it does is fries your nervous system. Which I imagine makes your body feel like it's on fire. But I don't know. I've never been there, and nobody has come back from that to tell us." Twelve days before the execution, the US court of appeals granted Clemons a temporary reprieve. The death he had imagined in such close detail was on hold, for now. Reggie Clemons is on death row at the Potosi Correctional Center, pictured, an austere low-lying complex surrounded by glistening barbed wire electrified fences deep in the countryside of Missouri. We are taken into the bowels of the institution, along echoing corridors, through remote-controlled iron doors, to a small white cell where Clemons is summoned to meet us. Over the ensuing three hours, we discuss his version of what happened over the Mississippi river, his experience of living for almost two decades under the permanent threat of execution, and his reflections on the impact of the death penalty on American society. Clemons was sentenced to death in 1993 for the murder of two young sisters, Julie and Robin Kerry. The women fell to their deaths off the Chain of Rocks bridge – pushed with Clemons's connivance, the prosecution said – into the brutal waters of the Mississippi on the night of the 4/5 April 1991. Clemons will not go into great detail about the events of that night, under instruction from his lawyers. But he does confirm that he and his three co-defendants – Marlin Gray, Antonio Richardson and Daniel Winfrey – did all go onto the bridge, which at the time was fenced off and derelict, but used as a popular hangout for teenagers. "We'd been watching a [St Louis] Blues hockey game, against Chicago I think," he recalls. After the game, they drove to the bridge and there, some time before midnight, they bumped into a group of strangers, the Kerry sisters and their cousin, Thomas Cummins. "We came across each other, talked to each other, had a casual conversation, about the bridge, talking about a movie that had been made up there. We talked about how a lot of different people hung out up there. And the graffiti that was painted on the surface of the bridge, reflecting all the different types of people that did come up there. It's just a nice casual conversation, and then we parted ways." Clemons says the conversation lasted about 15 minutes. "Then we left the bridge. The state says we came back. I'm saying we didn't." He won't go further than that, saying that he is reserving his full account of what happened on the bridge that night for when he is given a chance to clear his name in a court of law. 'The rape charges were used to inflame the passions of the jury' Though Clemons was found guilty of murdering the sisters, he was never accused of having directly pushed them into the river. No witness testified having seen him do so. Rather, he was convicted as an accomplice. The prosecution alleged that Clemons and his three co-defendants had returned to the bridge and accosted the Kerry sisters and their cousin, robbing them and raping the women. Clemons was alleged to have thrown the sisters' clothes off the bridge, before all three victims were forced into the river (the sisters drowned while Cummins testified that he swam to the bank). Afterwards, a co-defendant claimed in incriminating testimony that Clemons had bragged to his friends: "We threw them off." Clemons' link to the murders, according to the prosecution, was that he had committed rape and robbery and was therefore implicated. Yet rape and robbery charges were kept separate from the murder counts, and were dismissed soon after the murder trial had ended. "The rape and robbery charges were used to inflame the passions of the jury, as they were supposed to connect me to the murder," Clemons says. "I thought they were going to take me to trial for those charges later, but they never did. I am still pushing for it, because I strongly feel that in front of a jury I would be fully acquitted." At his murder trial, the prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies of Thomas Cummins and Daniel Winfrey, then aged 15, who was one of Clemons' three co-defendants. Both Cummins and Winfrey were white, while Clemons, Marlin Gray and Antonio Richardson were African Americans, lending a stark racial element to the proceedings. Both Cummins and Winfrey arguably had ulterior motives to implicate Clemons – Cummins because he was himself initially accused by police of murdering his cousins, though the investigation of him was later dropped, and Winfrey because the prosecution arranged a plea bargain with him in which he would be spared the death penalty in exchange for turning star witness against his black co-defendants. He pleaded guilty, was given a 30-year sentence and was released on parole in 2007. "I was a little angry and confused," Clemons says about Winfrey, who he had never met before the night the Kerry sisters died. "I didn't fully understand why he made the deal and turned states [witness]. I've wondered about it over the years. He was young, 15 years old. Here it is, he's facing the real serious case like this, with some strangers that he don't even know. So …" The other key evidence presented to the jury at the 1993 trial was Clemons's own confession to police made two days after the Kerry sisters went missing. In it, Clemons admitted to raping one of the sisters, though not to murdering them. Twenty years later, Clemons still insists, as he told internal affairs investigators 48 hours after he made the confession, that it was beaten out of him. He says: "I remember police mainly beating me in the chest. While they were beating me, they were telling me what they wanted to admit to. One of their punches skipped off my shoulder and caught me in my cheek, cut me right in front of my eye. Then another punch caused my lip to start bleeding." Clemons says that he agreed to make a statement just to "get my bearings a little bit. I needed a break from this beating before these people kill me, so I can think a little bit." He began to give a statement, Clemons says, along the lines dictated by the detectives, but in the middle of it he blurted out that he was being assaulted. They immediately stopped the tape and discarded it. "They came back about five minutes later, and started beating on me some more. So I made a second tape. I barely even remember it. It's like, hazy, the memory of it." The second tape was his confession to rape, which was crucial in putting him on death row. The account that Clemons gave the Guardian is the same as what he told officers of the St Louis police internal affairs unit when he complained of being beaten up two days after his initial interview, and echoes too what his lawyers said in appeal documents lodged with the Missouri supreme court. Yet why did he make that tape when it in effect put the seal on his own death sentence? "If you believe that someone is willing to beat you to death, while they're beating you they can just about get you to admit to anything." In addition to the police who he alleges attacked him, Clemons is very critical of other aspects of the criminal justice system. He accuses his own lawyers at the time of the trial of acting against his interests – the two lead attorneys were going through a divorce at the time of his trial and he believes they were ill-prepared to defend him. A separate team of defence lawyers who represented Clemons in his appeal for clemency at the time of his 2009 scheduled execution alleged in court papers that his trial attorneys had "failed him at every stage of his representation". All in all, Clemons says, "the pack was stacked against me. I knew I was going to get the death sentence, even before the trial started. I had already been tried and convicted in the media." In separate trials, Marlin Gray and Antonio Richardson were also put on death row. Richardson later had his conviction commuted to life imprisonment, but Gray was executed by lethal injection in October 2005. Clemons says Gray's death hit him hard. "He clearly didn't have any blood on his hands, either. No one said he pushed the two young women into the water. So I felt, well, they've executed him, they definitely can't not execute me. It created a feeling of inevitability. It's only by mercy of God that I feel I'm here still breathing today." Before he died, Gray seemed to Clemons to have lost all hope. "He kind of took the attitude of 'whatever.' At one point he said: 'I can't believe you still think that people are going to listen.' But I said, that don't mean I got to quit talking, trying to explain, and explain, and explain." In doing all that explaining, over so many years, Clemons has thought a lot about the death penalty and its impact on him. "It's like somebody pointing a gun to your head, every day, and telling you that I'm going to kill you some day, I just haven't decided when." 'The death penalty in America is poisonous' Now aged 40, he's lost count of the number of his fellow death row inmates who have been taken away, never to return. "I'm too young to know as many dead people as I do," he says. But he believes he's come to terms with the surreal character of life on death row. "This might sound crazy to some people, but I'm already free on the inside. I know I don't belong in here, and I'm free to think for myself. If my mind and spirit is free, my body is soon to follow." He's also had time to think about the death penalty's impact on America in a wider sense. Before his arrest, he was an advocate of capital punishment. Now he's come to the conclusion that the death penalty has a pervasive and negative effect that permeates itself throughout society. "The death penalty in America is poisonous to the social consciousness. It makes people consider death as a solution. Murder as a solution. "The death penalty desensitizes people to the human aspect of crime and punishment. You forget about the human being. You have to dehumanise somebody in order to kill them. And it's not a penalty at all. We are all going to die some day. So who are you punishing? Me or my family?" He says his heart goes out to the family of Julie and Robin Kerry. "I can't imagine what they're going through. I wish I could find a way to take their pain away, but that's not possible. You can't bring people back." Clemons says he can't express remorse, "because remorse requires that you're guilty of something." But what about the two women who died on the bridge? "I think about them a lot," Clemons says. "It's sad that they're not here to see the first black president, because from what I've read about them, that's something that they would definitely want to see. I've read that they were against the death penalty, and they would be fighting against a lot of wrongs that's going on in the world." To hear a man on death row for double murder saying that he thinks a lot about his alleged victims will be offensive to people sceptical of Clemons's protestations of innocence. It may also be difficult to hear for the family of the Kerry sisters, who have largely avoided media contact and are disdainful towards what one family member has called the "Reggie Clemons circus". No matter what comes out of the September hearings into his case, there will always be those who see Reggie Clemons as a cold-hearted killer deserving of the ultimate punishment. So how does he deal with the knowledge that a perception of guilt will hang over him always? "Whatever conclusion a person reaches, that is their own choice. I don't have any control over that, and I've learned not to give a lot away to what somebody thinks about me. "Not because I'm arrogant or because I'm unconcerned about other people's opinions. But because I know, and God knows. I know I'm not a rapist. I know I'm not a murderer or a killer. I know that I didn't do any of these things. I know I'm innocent."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The dramatic melt expected over the next week signals that global warming is having a major impact on the polar region Arctic sea ice is set to reach its lowest ever recorded extent as early as this weekend, in "dramatic changes" signalling that man-made global warming is having a major impact on the polar region. With the melt happening at an unprecedented rate of more than 100,000 sq km a day, and at least a week of further melt expected before it begins to reform ahead of the northern winter, satellites are expected to confirm the record – currently set in 2007 – within days. "Unless something really unusual happens we will see the record broken in the next few days. It might happen this weekend, almost certainly next week," Julienne Stroeve, a scientist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado, told the Guardian. "In the last few days it has been losing 100,000 sq km a day, a record in itself for August. A storm has spread the ice pack out, opening up water, bringing up warmer water. Things are definitely changing quickly." Because ice thickness, volume, extent and area are all measured differently, it may be a week before there is unanimous agreement among the world's cryologists (ice experts) that 2012 is a record year. Four out of the nine daily sea ice extent and area graphs kept by scientists in the US, Europe and Asia suggest that records have already been broken. "The whole energy balance of the arctic is changing. There's more heat up there. There's been a change of climate and we are losing more seasonal ice. The rate of ice loss is faster than the models can capture [but] we can expect the Arctic to be ice-free in summer by 2050," said Stroeve. "Only 15 years ago I didn't expect to see such dramatic changes, no one did. The ice-free season is far longer now. Twenty years ago it was about a month. Now it's three months. Temperatures last week in the arctic were 14C, which is pretty warm." Scientists at the Danish Meteorological Institute, the Arctic regional ocean observing system in Norway and others in Japan have all said the ice is very close to its minimum of just over recorded in 2007. The University of Bremen, whose data do not take into account ice along a 30km coastal zone, says it sees ice extent below the all-time record low of 4.33m sq km recorded in September 2007 . Ice volume in the Arctic has declined dramatically over the past decade. The 2011 minimum was more than 50% below that of 2005. According to the Polar Science Centre at the University of Washington it now stands at around 5,770 cubic kilometres, compared with 12,433 cubic kilometres during the 2000s and 6,494 cubic kilometres in 2011. The ice volume for 31 July 2012 was roughly 10% below the value for the same day in 2011. A new study by UK scientists suggests that 900 cubic kilometres of summer sea ice has disappeared from the Arctic ocean over the past year. The consequences of losing the Arctic's ice coverage for the summer months are expected to be profound. If the white sea ice no longer reflects sunlight back into space, the region can be expected to heat up even more than at present. This could lead to an increase in ocean temperatures with unknown effects on weather systems in northern latitudes. In a statement, a Greenpeace spokesman said: "The disappearing Arctic still serves as a stark warning to us all. Data shows us that the frozen north is teetering on the brink. The level of ice "has remained far below average" and appears to be getting thinner, leaving it more vulnerable to future melting. The consequences of further rapid ice loss at the top of the world are of profound importance to the whole planet. This is not a warning we can afford to ignore."
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | President holds six-point lead in Ohio but Romney has gained ground in Wisconsin and Florida, Quinnipiac poll finds
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Family-only ceremony to be followed after US Labor Day by public event celebrating British director's life and work A private memorial for the British film-maker Tony Scott, who leapt to his death from a Los Angeles bridge on Sunday, will take place this weekend. A spokesman said the ceremony for the director of Top Gun and True Romance would be followed by a public event at a later date to celebrate his life and work. Scott jumped 185ft from the Vincent Thomas bridge near Long Beach, about 30 miles south of his Beverly Hills home. He left a suicide note at his office but its contents have not yet been made public. "Tony Scott will be honoured at a private, family-only ceremony this weekend in Los Angeles," read the statement from the director's spokesperson. "The family will announce plans after Labor Day for a gathering to celebrate the life and work of Mr Scott. Details will be forthcoming once they are formalised." Meanwhile, the Hollywood Reporter published an extensive list of lengthy tributes to Scott from those who worked with him and admired the British director. "Tony Scott was a great director, a genuine friend and it is unfathomable to think that he is now gone," wrote his regular collaborator Denzel Washington. "He had a tremendous passion for life and for the art of film-making and was able to share this passion with all of us through his cinematic brilliance. My family sends their prayers and deepest condolences to the entire Scott family." "I was shocked and devastated to learn of Tony Scott's death," wrote producer Jerry Bruckheimer, who worked with the director on Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop II, Days of Thunder and many more. "He was not only a brilliant film-maker, but a wonderful man and dear friend. He was thoughtful and warm and had an irrepressible sense of humour. I was fortunate to have worked with him for 30 years, an experience that I will always treasure. Tony was a true original and he will be terribly missed by everyone who knew him. My heart goes out to his family." "I worked closely with Tony for two years on Domino," wrote Donnie Darko director and screenwriter Richard Kelly. "He hired me to come in and take a crack on the story of [bounty hunter] Domino Harvey. He really responded to the idea of doing her story as a fever dream, this acid trip. It was like getting to hang out with this great idol from my childhood. He was just incredibly generous, very warm and funny. He was very upfront that he was not a screenwriter, but he knew so much about how to develop a story, he was so experienced. He really helped me to develop my skill-set." The full list of tributes can be found here.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Rover moved 4.5m and rotated through 120 degrees, latest part of extensive health check-up since it landed on 5 August After two weeks of checking instruments, testing software and practising its rock-zapping skills, Curiosity the Mars rover has taken its first baby steps across the surface of the red planet. Nasa announced on Wednesday that Curiosity had moved 4.5m and rotated through 120 degrees before reversing by 2.5m, a extra-terrestrial waltz that left the one-tonne vehicle some 6m from where it landed more than two weeks ago. After a hair-raising entry on 5 August – when Curiosity was gingerly lowered to the surface by a module that fired rockets to keep the descent steady – extensive testing was needed to make sure all the caution involved in landing on Mars was not in vain. Wednesday's voyage represented "a very big moment", said Pete Theisinger, Curiosity's project manager, who described himself as "ecstatic" at the the progress. "It couldn't be more important. We built a rover, so unless the rover roves we haven't accomplished anything." Theisinger said the mission had been going "extremely well" so far, reporting "no anomalies or other issues", with the exception of suspected damage to one of two wind sensors on the rover's weather station, most likely caused by pebbles striking the device. The site where Curiosity landed has been named Bradbury Landing, the team said, after science fiction writer Ray Bradbury. In his short story collection The Martian Chronicles, humans colonised Mars after fleeing a ravaged Earth. Bradbury, who died in June, would have turned 92 on Wednesday. "This was not a difficult choice for the science team," said Michael Meyer, lead scientist of Nasa's Mars Exploration Program. "Many of us and millions of other readers were inspired in our lives by stories Ray Bradbury wrote to dream of the possibility of life on Mars." The journey on Wednesday was described as "very beautiful" by lead driver Matt Heverly, who was behind the wheel for Curiosity's initial foray. "I'm pleased to report that today Curiosity had her first successful drive on Mars," he told the news conference in Pasadena, California, to whoops and cheers. Heverly reported a "fully functioning" system on the rover. The conditions for driving had been kind too, the soil "firm, great for mobility". The key thing ascertained from the drive, Heverly said, was that the team had been able to "do one full revolution of the drive actuators", which power Curiosity's six wheels. "We're very excited to have this milestone behind us. We can see that the system is performing very well." The first few weeks on Mars are set aside for performing various tests on Curiosity to check its cameras and various scientific instruments. It is also an opportunity for engineers to get used to using Curiosity's robotic arm, which is 2m long and weighs in at 30kg – much bigger and trickier to manoeuvre than the arms on the previous Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity. "They're not in any rush – this mission is meant to last for two Earth years," said Peter Grindrod, a planetary scientist at University College London, who has been watching every move of the mission. "The first few days are about: is everything in one piece, are the cameras working?" The science experiments will start when the rover gets to its first place of interest, an area called Glenelg, about 400m away to the east of where it is now. Nasa scientists are also keen to analyse blast marks created on Mars's surface when the descent rockets moved away dust during the landing, revealing interesting-looking bedrock. The rover has already fired its laser into the landing site and taken pictures and data, but Nasa has not yet revealed any of the measurements. "All the other rocks on the surface look like the Mars everyone knows from Viking through to Spirit," said Grindrod. "The ones that have been revealed [at the blast marks] look like they might be slightly lighter toned and might suggest a different composition. The most interesting thing is that these don't look like rocks that are just sat on the surface and have ended up there, either from thrown out from a meteorite impact or having been delivered by erosion. These things look like they might be in situ, where they formed." Geologists can use in-situ rocks to ascertain a good idea of the history of that part of the planet – when it formed, for example, and in what conditions. It will take Curiosity around three weeks or more to travel to Glenelg and, along the way, Nasa scientists will be watching everything the rover sees, in case they spot anything interesting on the journey. It could be a year before Curiosity gets to its main mission: Mount Sharp. "There's two main things that make Mount Sharp interesting," Grindrod said. "It's five kilometres of layered rock, which are probably sediments. We're not sure how they are laid down but, on Earth, those layers are very good at revealing the environment in which they formed." Another factor in choosing where to land Curiosity was the chemistry scientists saw from orbit. "Near the bottom there is evidence that water was around at some point in some form. If you go to the top, it's dry," said Grindrod. While Nasa's current Mars lander has barely started its operations, the space agency is already planning its next. Insight will travel to Mars in 2016 to investigate how the interior of the planet is different to that of Earth – in particular, is it solid or liquid? A liquid core on Earth drives a dynamo that creates a magnetic field around our planet. Mars does not have a magnetic field at the moment but scientists think it might have had one in its very early history. As the core died out and stopped moving, said Grindrod, the planet would have lost its magnetic field and, consequently, its protection from the damaging solar wind. The atmosphere would have been stripped away, explaining why it is so thin at the moment. "That happened at the same time as the volcanoes were erupting, that the water turned acidic," said Grindrod. "All these things happened at the same time, making Mars go from a life-friendly environment to a more life-unfriendly environment, all at the same time."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Follow the latest updates as the UK prime minister joins President Obama in warning Syria about its chemical weapons
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Follow the latest updates as the UK prime minister joins President Obama in warning Syria about its chemical weapons
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Latest economic data shows Chinese manufacturing output hitting a nine-month low, and Germany's private sector shrinking at its fastest pace since 2008/09
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The eurozone is probably in recession, as Germany's private sector shrinks at its fastest pace since 2008/09
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Leaders of Germany and France put on a united front, as the latest economic data shows that the eurozone is probably in recession
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Latest economic data shows Chinese manufacturing output hitting a nine-month low, and Germany's private sector shrinking at its fastest pace since 2008/09
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Congressman says he is proud of his anti-abortion record but says Mitt Romney sets policy for presidential ticket Paul Ryan attempted to draw a line under the Republican party's abortion row by saying on Wednesday he is proud of his anti-abortion record but that Mitt Romney set the policy for the presidential ticket. But despite his latest comments, to reporters aboard his plane to Raleigh, the controversy is unlikely to go away any time soon, according to political strategists. The storm has rumbled on since the weekend, when the Republican congressman Todd Akin caused outrage with his remarks about "legitimate rape". Romney then put out a statement reiterating his – and the Romney-Ryan ticket's – support for abortion in cases of rape, incest and a threat to the life of the mother. Ryan is anti-abortion and although he supports an exception for when the mother's life is threatened, he has co-sponsored a bill that would allow hospitals to refuse abortion in cases where it could save a woman's life. Anti-abortion groups such as Personhood USA have expressed their concern over Ryan's apparent lack of influence over Romney, who they regard as too liberal on the issue, while Democrats have sought to highlight the vice-presidential candidate's conservative views on social issues. When asked about the differences he and Romney had with regard to abortion, on Wednesday, Ryan said: "I'm proud of my pro-life record," according to the New York Times. Ryan said: "Mitt Romney's going to be the president. The president sets the policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. I'm comfortable with it because it's a good step in the right direction. I'll leave it at that." Political strategists said the Democrats would continue to capitalise on the controversy but that it would have little impact on the Republican party internally. Steve Mitchell, a Republican strategist and chairman of Mitchell Research and Communications, said: "The Democrats are going to want to push this message forward from now until the end of the campaign. The president is trying to find a coalition that will get him to 51% and part of that coalition are women. By taking that incredibly stupid remark Akin made, and trying to attach Ryan to those comments, they can make even greater inroads with women who would find those remarks offensive." Mitchell said that while Ryan is currently coming under fire from anti-abortion groups, it won't last. "He may be criticised by pro-life voters but that will be short-lived. For social conservatives who are single issue voters it's clear that the Ryan position is far superior to [that of] vice-president Biden. George Bush moved his position to be in line with Ronald Reagan on abortion. "Ryan is going to have to make it clear, as he has, that rape is rape and he disagrees vehemently with Akin – he asked him to withdraw from the race. The Democrats will have an ad that says that Paul Ryan and Todd Akin sponsored a bill about unavailability of abortion in cases of rape together, to tie Ryan and Akin together." He said he believed that it would not have an impact on the Republican party.
"It is not going to be an internal problem in the Republican race at all. The position on abortion will be the Romney position if he is elected. Liberal voters who are single issue voters are already voting for Obama. Other women who are not single issue voters will made their decision on other issues." However, Dr Lara Brown, a political strategist who served in Bill Clinton's administration at the Department of Education, disagreed. "The vice presidential candidate's voting record is in line with the party platform but not in line with the presidential ticket, so of course this is going to roil the factional politics within the party. But I think that the Republican party would be foolish to spend time on this issue. Abortion is not a wedge issue, where a substantial majority is one one side and a campaign used that issue to pull a majority towards them. The country is split on pro-life [vs] pro-choice. It is much more in the middle." Brown, an assistant professor in political science at Villanova University in Philadelphia, said that Democrats were keen to exploit the row because of the importance of women voters. A poll from the Pew Research Centre last month showed that while Obama and Romney tied among male voters, the president was ahead among women voters by nearly 20 percentage points. This week's Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll also gave Obama a lead over women. Brown said: "Democrats see an opportunity to tie what they believe is an extreme position on abortion to the ticket and they are doing this because white women are the swing vote. It will especially matter in places in suburban America where there are white women moderates." In a statement, Jennifer Mason, communications director for Personhood USA, said: "Personhood USA does not endorse political candidates, but we had hoped that Congressman Ryan would be a good influence on Governor Romney, considering Romney's liberal abortion record." She said: "Reading today that babies conceived in rape should suffer the death penalty under a Romney-Ryan administration is extremely concerning, and indicates that congressman Ryan's pro-woman and pro-baby positions would have little influence if he wins the office of vice president of the United States."
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | UN body set up to be world's single biggest source of financing for climate change mitigation faces complex and difficult task The fate of billions of dollars of promised funding from rich countries to help the developing world adapt to climate change will be discussed on Thursday in Geneva, at the first meeting of the UN's Green Climate Fund. The fund is meant to be the biggest single funding route for the $100bn (£63bn) that developed countries have pledged should flow to poor nations each year by 2020, to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the effects of global warming. But key decisions – such as where the fund should be headquartered, who should run it, how it will operate and how it can raise funds – will be delayed for months. The initial meeting, itself delayed by months as governments procrastinated, will focus on the process. These will include discussions on how to choose a location for the headquarters among several that have been proposed, and how to appoint the co-chairs, one each from a developed and a developing country. Australia is the front-runner for the position of developed country chair, but there is still competition among the 12 developing nations on the board for the other slot. A final decision on the GCF's location – Germany, Namibia, and other countries have all offered to be the host – is understood to be unlikely before the end of the year. All of the other important issues around the GCF, including how much money it is likely to have to disburse and how it will raise funds from the private sector, are matters of contention. The fund is unlikely to have much sway over the initial round of "fast-start" financing from rich to poor countries that was agreed at the Copenhagen summit in 2009. Most of the $30bn (£19bn) pledged at Copenhagen has now been committed, and most of it is already earmarked for various projects. For instance, the UK is on track to provide £1.5bn between 2010-13 and about £1bn of this has already been committed to bilateral and multilateral projects developed with poor countries, or is being channelled through existing funding routes. Given this, it is unclear whether the GCF will have access to much financing in the next few years, even though it is envisaged to be the world's single biggest source of financing for climate change mitigation and adaptation by 2020. In the longer term, the prospects for substantial funding are even less clear: it will have to raise money from both governments and the private sector but at present there is no agreement on how it might do so. Although the $100bn a year was agreed at Copenhagen, and confirmed at Cancun in 2010, the GCF will be only one source among many for those funds. Private sector and government cash flowing through other routes will also count towards the $100bn goal. One major source of contention in the discussions is that some developing country governments want to limit the fund, so that contributions from the public sector come only from "traditional donors". That is, the countries labelled as developed in the original UN climate treaties of 1992 and the Kyoto protocol of 1997. This is an important distinction, as it would mean that China, the world's second biggest economy, and other rapidly growing countries such as South Korea, Singapore and many Middle Eastern nations, despite their high incomes per capita, would be excluded from contributing. Developed nations including the US and the UK insist that this distinction should not apply to the fund. Although the GCF has been under discussion for years, with governments agreeing in principle at Copenhagen to set it up, the complexities of the climate negotiations have stalled its development. However, the delays increase the political risk around the project: for instance, the US under a Republican president or Congress is unlikely to be willing to commit substantial sums to the fund. As the US presidential campaign has progressed, the White House has not made climate change negotiations a major issue. The administration's special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, caused consternation several weeks ago when he appeared to suggest, in a speech at Dartmouth College in the US, that the long term goal of holding global warming to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels – the underpinning principle of the Copenhagen accord, Cancun agreement, and last year's agreement at Durban - could be abandoned.
  | | | | | | | | | |  | |  | |  |
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire