|  |  |  | | | | | The Guardian World News | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Withdrawal comes as the security transition to Afghan forces is in trouble, threatened by spike in so-called insider attacks The last of the 33,000 'surge' troops ordered into Afghanistan by president Barack Obama over three years ago have withdrawn from the country, returning the American presence to pre-surge levels. The withdrawal, which leaves 68,000 American forces in the warzone, comes as the security transition to Afghan forces is in trouble, threatened by a spike in so-called insider attacks in which Afghan Army and police troops, or insurgents dressed in their uniforms, have been attacking and killing US and Nato forces. It has called into question the core strategy that relies on Nato troops working shoulder to shoulder with Afghans, training them to take over the security of their own country so the US and its allies can leave at the end of 2014 as planned. The number of US forces there peaked at about 101,000 last year, and they have been coming out slowly over the past several months. The surge was aimed at beating back the Taliban to give the Afghan government and its security forces the time and space to take hold. The key goal was to ensure that the Taliban did not regain a foothold in the country that could allow it once again to become a safe haven for terror groups. And there was hope that Taliban members would be willing to come to the peace table. Military commanders say the war strategy is on track and that they have made broad gains against the Taliban, wresting control of areas where the insurgents once had strong footholds. And US defence secretary Leon Panetta has characterised the insider attacks as the last gasp of a desperate insurgency. But other top military leaders, including US general Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, are worried about the impact of the attacks on the troops. Dempsey called them a "very serious threat" to the war campaign and has declared that "something has to change."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sixteen Amish men and women convicted of hate crimes including forcibly cutting off sect members' beards and hair Sixteen Amish men and women have been convicted of hate crimes including forcibly cutting off fellow sect members' beards and hair in a religious dispute that offered a rare and sometimes lurid glimpse into the closed and usually self-regulating community of believers. A federal jury found Samuel Mullet guilty of orchestrating the cuttings of Amish men's beards and women's hair last autumn in attacks that terrorized the normally peaceful religious settlements in eastern Ohio. His followers were found guilty of carrying out the attacks. Prosecutors and witnesses described how sons pulled their father out of bed and chopped off his beard in the moonlight and how women surrounded their mother-in-law and cut off nearly three metres of her hair, taking it down to the scalp in some places. All the defendants are members of Mullet's settlement that he founded near the West Virginia panhandle. Prosecutors say the defendants targeted hair because it carries spiritual significance in their faith. Mullet wasn't accused of cutting anyone's hair. But prosecutors said he planned and encouraged his sons and the others, mocked the victims in jailhouse phone calls and was given a paper bag stuffed with the hair of one victim. One bishop told jurors his chest-length beard was chopped to within 3.8 centimetres of his chin when four or five men dragged him out of his farmhouse in a late-night home invasion. Prosecutors told jurors that Mullet thought he was above the law and free to discipline those who went against him based on his religious beliefs. Before his arrest last November, he defended what he believes is his right to punish people who break church laws. "You have your laws on the road and the town if somebody doesn't obey them, you punish them. But I'm not allowed to punish the church people?" Mullet told The Associated Press last October. The hair cuttings, he said, were a response to continuous criticism he'd received from other Amish religious leaders about him being too strict, including shunning people in his own group. Those involved in the hair cuttings face prison terms of 10 years or more. The charges against Mullet and the others included conspiracy, evidence tampering and obstruction of justice. Defence attorneys acknowledged that the hair cuttings took place and that crimes were committed but contend that prosecutors were overreaching by calling them hate crimes. All the victims, prosecutors said, were people who had a dispute with Mullet over his religious practices and his authoritarian rule. Witnesses testified that Mullet had complete control over the settlement that he founded two decades ago and described how his religious teachings and methods of punishments deviated from Amish traditions. One woman described how he took part in the sexual "counselling" of married women and others said he encouraged men to sleep in chicken coops as punishment. Mullet's attorney, Ed Bryan, maintained that the government had not shown that Mullet was at the centre of the attacks. The defendants who cut the hair and beards acted on their own and were inspired by one another, not their bishop, Bryan said. Some of the defence attorneys claimed that the hair cuttings were motivated by family feuds or that the defendants were trying to help others who were straying from their Amish beliefs. In one of the attacks, an Amish woman testified that her own sons and a daughter who lived in Mullet's community cut her hair and her husband's beard in a surprise assault.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Women's groups salute Republican Susana Martinez's request to remove 'redundant and unnecessary' term from legislation New Mexico governor Susana Martinez has asked her administration to remove a reference to "forcible rape" from a new state policy, after its use was criticised by women's groups. The outdated and inaccurate language, which effectively narrows the definition of rape, became the subject of heated debate in August after Republican Missouri senate nominee Todd Akin used the term "legitimate rape" in describing his anti-abortion views.
The Huffington Post reported on Wednesday that the term appeared in the New Mexico's proposed changes to its official applications to childcare assistance. The state's children, youth and families department was proposing changes to its means-testing policy for childcare assistance that would exempt only victims of "forcible rape" and incest from having to file child support claims against the father. Women's and family groups reacted angrily, saying that using such language made a distinction between "forcible" and other rapes, even though all rapes involve force. It would also, critics said, push victims of rapes not considered "forcible" – such as statutory rape of a minor – to contact their rapists to pursue them for child support before being eligible for childcare assistance. No-one at the state's CYFD was available for comment. Enrique Knell, a spokesperson for the CYFD, told the Huffington Post that Martinez, a Republican, asked the department to remove the word "forcible" from the language on Wednesday night. "It's redundant, unnecessary, and she [Martinez] doesn't support its usage," Knell said. He said the CYFD had used such language because the FBI still uses the definition, as do some federal regulations relating to paternity disputes. Martinez, a former attorney general, also used the words "forcible rape" in a proclamation about New Mexico's Sexual awareness month in April. Carol Tracy, the executive director of Woman's Law Project, which has long campaigned for the definition of "forcible rape" to be changed, welcomed Martinez's removal of the term. She said: "It is a good move, a progressive move. Because rape is force enough." The definition of rape used by the FBI in its Uniform Crime Report was revised from "forcible rape" to rape in January this year. Rape is now defined federally as: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." However, states vary in their definition of rape. Attorney general Eric Holder, announcing the changes earlier this year, said: "The longstanding, narrow definition of forcible rape, first established in 1927, is 'the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.' It thus included only forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina and excluded oral and anal penetration; rape of males; penetration of the vagina and anus with an object or body part other than the penis; rape of females by females; and non-forcible rape."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | After more than a decade out of the spotlight, Stefani and No Doubt are back. They talk about the breakup that spawned their biggest hit, spending time with the Obamas and taking eight kids on tour In her tight black trousers, a loose top with more safety pins than fabric, toe-crunching high stilettos with a steel rod in place of a heel and heavy makeup on top of a creamy complexion, Gwen Stefani looks, initially, like a typical rock'n'roll veteran and the very image of the trendy celebrity mother frequently photographed in LA and Primrose Hill. And when she walks into the studio in west Hollywood and instantly bemoans the non-existent cold temperature, it looks worryingly as if she might be as high maintenance as the role generally implies. Initial appearances prove to be misleading. Stefani is, indeed, a pop star and high-profile mother – the endless paparazzi shots of her with her sons Kingston and Zuma help to keep her in the public consciousness between albums – but beneath those punky safety pins is, it transpires, a sweet and endearingly unfiltered woman, one who is prone to being a little more honest than perhaps her PR would like. When asked if she and her British husband, singer Gavin Rossdale, who fronts the band Bush, ever discuss her songwriting together, Stefani replies, "Oh, he's never been a fan of what we do," and the entire room freezes, No Doubt bandmates and PRs alike. "He's more into dark, indie stuff. But I'm not saying he doesn't think I'm amazing," she blithely continues. "Oh God, that's going to be a headline, isn't it? 'Gavin thinks Gwen's amazing'!" And the PR makes a strained little smile. The announcement that No Doubt are about to release a new album, the first since 2001's Rock Steady, prompts a similar sensation of pleasant surprise. In the year that even Chumbawamba have given up the noble fight, one has to ask whether a band so much associated with the 1990s really has a place in 2012. No Doubt have always had their hardcore fans, dating back to their formation in 1986 when they were a popular ska band that venerated Madness in their home state of California. They broke out of that pond three albums into their career with the then ubiquitous single Don't Speak on 1995's Tragic Kingdom and, while they never quite matched that success again, ska-inflected pop-based songs such as Hey, Baby and Just a Girl burst through the grunge landscape of their time to become part of the backing music of the decade. Yet even then, the band's success felt more like an anomaly than the establishment of something long-lasting. When Stefani, always the band's most charismatic performer, broke away to pursue a solo career, focusing more on dance music with 2004's hugely successful Love Angel Music Baby and 2006's The Sweet Escape, as well as starting up a fashion line and pairing up with hip-hop collaborators such as Eve (Let Me Blow Ya Mind, Rich Girl) and Ludacris (Luxurious), this seemed like both a natural progression and an inevitable end. Eleven years is a generation in pop music. Without wishing to hold Justin Bieber up as the standard-bearer of modern music, when No Doubt last released a new album, he was seven and his fans were barely zygotes. Reading this on mobile? Click here to listen Actually, though, all these issues turn out to be moot as the new album, Push and Shove, is pretty great. Rather like Stefani's look of "1950s platinum bombshell meets futuristic Japanese cartoon", No Doubt's sound has remained consistent and feels even remarkably undated, with some modern touches from producer Diplo and samples from his own side-project, Major Lazer. The first single, Settle Down, is as catchy as any of No Doubt's finest and the video pays homage to the band's heyday with Stefani wearing perhaps the most 90s outfit this side of floral dresses and DM boots. To original fans it will prompt nostalgia, to new ones that black vest, visible bra, shiny trousers and giant colourful watch will probably look like a very on-trend 90s fashion revival. "It just feels so much more natural being back in this mode. The solo records allowed me to indulge my girly side but it was never meant to be taken seriously," says Stefani, casually disowning several million record sales and a slew of Grammy nominations. "It was just like an art project that kept going longer than I expected. The group never ended – we always knew we'd come back to make this album." But the album almost never happened. The band, which consists of Tony Kanal, Tom Dumont and Adrian Young alongside Stefani, originally tried to write it in 2008 and found, for the first time in their 20-year career, that they couldn't. "I was just burned out. I'd done the two [solo] albums, the two tours, I'd had the two babies – there had been a lot of output in those years [since Rock Steady]. When you first have a baby your life doesn't really change," she says, possibly uttering a sentence that has never been said before by anyone, ever. "You're tired but it's nothing compared to when they grow and they're humans and they need you. By the time we were making this record my toddler was becoming a little guy and school, and oh my God, it was soooper challenging." "All of us have kids now but, for the rest of us it's much easier in the studio as our wives are looking after them," says Kanal, the softly spoken Anglo-Indian-American bassist in the group. "But for Gwen it's a whole different thing and seeing her struggle trying to be a great musician and great mum became the basis of the album." Reading this on mobile? Click here to view video Work/parenthood balance might not sound like the most rock'n'roll of subjects for an album but it is a logical one for No Doubt. All of their albums and Stefani's solo ones have been heavily autobiographical: "We're not creative enough to do it any other way!" laughs Stefani, who is the group's main lyricist. At times her solo songs sounded less like structured lyrics and more like a stream of consciousness ("What if they say that you're a cloner / Naturally, I'm worried if I do it alone / Who really cares, cause it's your life / You never know, it could be great.") When the group decided to go on tour in 2009 in the hope – which was then fulfilled – it might inspire them to write their new album, the band's eight kids all came along and they'll do so again when they tour Push and Shove. "If it happens during the school year we've decided to home-school them," says drummer Adrian Young who, despite his outfit of cropped trousers, suspenders, brightly coloured hair and a bowler hat, talks with the seriousness of the driest accountant. "Tour school!" chirrups guitarist Dumont. Reading this on mobile? Click here to view video Of course, No Doubt's most famous song, Don't Speak, was about one of the band's most personal struggles: the end of Stefani and Kanal's long-term relationship. Yet while the lyrics, coupled with Stefani's pained vocals, made for a classic breakup song, it must have been pretty weird for Kanal to be standing behind his heartbroken girlfriend every night on tour while she belted out how miserable she was without him. "Oh definitely," replies Kanal while Stefani nods eagerly beside him. "We were on tour for Tragic Kingdom for 28 months. We were going through the breakup, and in every interview we were talking about it so we were opening this wound on an hourly basis. It was so brutal but I don't know how we made it through." This breakup nearly broke Stefani. Even today, nearly 43 and with a hugely successful career, she gives off the air of a woman who loves to devote herself with girlish enthusiasm to the man in her life. She positively radiates when she talks about husband Rossdale's "beautiful lyrics" and she can still recall, with painful candour, the devastation she felt when Kanal ended their seven-year relationship when she had been dreaming of marriage and babies. Yet this episode gave her not just a hit single but a career; it wasn't until the breakup that she dared to try songwriting. "Before, I was really passive, all I cared about was being in love with my boyfriend. I didn't have any creative power, nothing. I don't know that person any more. But I'd been really bad at school and didn't know what I would do, I just sang in my brother's band [Eric Stefani, who founded the group, left No Doubt after Tragic Kingdom to work on The Simpsons.] But after the breakup I just started writing all these songs and suddenly I was: 'Oh I think I'm really good at this!'" she giggles. Now Kanal and Stefani are so far past the pain of the breakup, even if they will forever be associated with it, that Stefani can announce that her ex's girlfriend told her that she and Kanal had conceived a baby the morning after it happened. "We'll probably write a song about that at some point," deadpans Kanal. "Look it would be disingenuous to say that it's been all smooth sailing. There have definitely been moments when we've talked about breaking up, like when Eric left and when Gwen and Tony broke up," says Young. "But we've always treated each other with respect whereas maybe other bands that break up forget that, or there is a drug habit which compromises many things. And we just never reached that point." Instead, they have all remained firm friends, hanging out together in between albums. Kanal even produced Stefani's solo work. Today, Stefani is a bona fide A-lister who was recently asked to host a fundraiser for President Obama at her house in LA. "My kids had a complete meltdown when Michelle Obama arrived. The exact opposite of what you want to happen when the First Lady turns up at your house," she smiles and Kanal looks at her proudly. To the delight of the British paparazzi, Stefani has also spent time in London. When asked what she liked about living in the city she cites, after only a brief pause, "the little shops" and, somewhat less convincingly, "uh, the food". "But then it rains at noon and you're like, what? Then you have to stay inside your house all day. It's hard," she says solemnly, her face full of fret. She'll probably write a song about it.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | President forced to defend deportations but says he has been unable to work with Republicans in Congress on reform plans Barack Obama has described lack of immigration reform as the biggest failure of his presidency, but blamed his inability to legalise millions of undocumented immigrants on what he implicitly admitted was another failure – the collapse of his attempts at compromise and consensus with Congress and the realisation that he "cannot change Washington from the inside". Obama was repeatedly pressed on immigration by a mostly Latino audience in an interview on the Spanish-language Univision TV station in Miami. He was forced to defend his record on deportations of illegal immigrants and to deny that his order in July allowing about 1.7 million young undocumented migrants to obtain work permits was an election ploy. Obama was also accused of breaking a promise, made during the 2008 presidential election campaign, to permit a path to citizenship or residency for many undocumented immigrants during his first year in office. Asked later in the interview what the greatest failure of his presidency has been, Obama returned to the topic. "My biggest failure so far is [that] we haven't gotten comprehensive immigration reform done," the president said. "But it's not for lack of trying or desire – and I'm confident that we're going to accomplish that." Obama denied he had broken his promise and went on to blame his inability "to change the tone in Washington" for the lack of an immigration reform law. He said that as soon as he came to power, Republicans conspired to block him. Obama said he could not find a single Republican to work with him on immigration legislation. He said he had been "naive". "The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside; you can only change it from the outside. That's how I got elected and that's how the big accomplishments like healthcare got done, was because we mobilised the American people to speak out," he said. "Something I'd really like to concentrate on in my second term is being in a much more constant conversation with the American people so that they can put pressure on Congress to help move some of these issues forward." Opinion polls show Latino voters to be twice as likely to vote for Obama as Romney, but many votes are up for grabs in some battleground states such as Florida. The Republicans, keen to go on the offensive after a torrid two weeks, immediately pounced on the remarks, with Mitt Romney repeatedly mentioning them during a speech in Sarasota. Claiming that the president had broken a promise made in 2008, Romney said: "His slogan was: 'Yes we can'. Now it's: 'No I can't'." On Twitter, Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, wrote: "Between no immigration reform and can't change DC from the inside, seems like Obama just admitted his 08 campaign was garbage." The Univision audience questioned Obama on issues that rarely get much of an airing in the US English-language media, such as combating Mexico's drug cartels. But the primary focus was on immigration, a source of considerable concern in Hispanic communities where families often have relatives or friends who are in the US illegally. Obama was pressed on why there has been a rise in deportations of illegal immigrants under his presidency. He said that it was in part because Congress put more money into enforcing border controls. Nonetheless, he said the target of deportation is not "hard-working families" and those with long ties to the US. "More than half of our enforcement now is directed at people with criminal records. Of the remaining half, about two-thirds are people who are typically apprehended close to the border. So these are not people who have long standing roots," he said. But he added: "We still ultimately have to change the laws." Although Obama faced strong scepticism at times, he appeared to emerge in better shape than his Republican rival, after Romney a similar appearance on Wednesday on Univision, a principal source of news for a large number of Latino voters. Romney was accused of evading questions about whether he would deport undocumented aliens, including the young people Obama ordered should be permitted to stay. Eventually an exasperated Romney said: "We're not going to round up 12 million people, that includes kids and parents, and have them all deported." Romney said that as president he would find a "permanent solution" to an immigration system that has "been broken for years". This included temporary work permits and permanent residency cards to people with advanced qualifications. But he repeatedly refused to say whether he would overturn Obama's order permitting young illegal immigrants without a criminal record to remain in the US and obtain a work permit. "These kids deserve something better than temporary – they deserve a permanent position," Romney said without offering a specific alternative. Earlier this year, Romney said he favoured policies to promote "self-deportation" of illegal immigrants, but he downplayed that on Wednesday. Rommey's attempt to woo Hispanic voters was further damaged on Thursday with the emergence of a clip from a video of a Romney fundraiser in which he said that illegal immigrants generally "have no skill or experience". "Gosh, I'd love to bring in more legal immigrants that have skill and knowledge. I'd like to staple a green card to every PhD in the world and say, 'Come to America, we want you here.' Instead, we make it hard for people who get educated here or elsewhere to make this their home," he said. "Unless, of course, you have no skill or experience, in which case you're welcome to cross the border and stay here for the rest of your life. It's very strange." Obama took the opportunity to take a jab at Romney over other parts of the fundraiser video which has been leaked in recent days - particularly Romney's assertion that the half of American voters who support Obama pay no income tax, rely on the government for handouts and think of themselves as victims. Obama said Romney is out of touch. "When you express an attitude that half the country considers itself victims, that somehow they want to be dependent on government, my thinking is maybe you haven't gotten around a lot,'" he said.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | President discusses immigration failures on Spanish-language TV and says 'you can't change Washington from the inside'. Follow live updates here
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Money woes, more weak polling numbers and a defection by Tim Pawlenty as the bad news keeps coming for Mitt Romney
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Protest backed by billionaire Koch brothers fizzles out as Occupiers match numbers and attend with host of satirical signs A conservative rally billed as an opportunity to "stand up to Occupy Wall Street extremists" fell flat on Thursday when it was co-opted by members of Occupy Wall Street. Supporters of Americans for Prosperity, a Tea Party-esque group funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, gathered at the Rockefeller Center in midtown Manhattan to demonstrate against both Occupy Wall Street and President Obama. But almost half of the sparse crowd were Occupy Wall Street protesters, smartly dressed and bearing signs parodying Americans for Prosperity's ultra-conservative message. "My sign says: 'I'm dreaming of a white president, just like the ones we used to have,'" said Stan Williams, a labour organiser and member of the Occupy movement. "There were some people, with my sign especially, who said why are you bringing race into it," said Williams, who is black. "But there were about five or six people who said: 'That's a great sign.'" Warren Bancroft, co-founder of the satirical group Americans for Inequality, whose Facebook page describes the organisation as a "group of concerned citizens who cherish America's history of vast inequalities", was drawing approving nods from the Americans for Prosperity crowd as he loudly criticised the Occupy movement, arguing that "inequality plays a positive role". "We're committed to reversing the narrative of inequality in this country," Bancroft said. "For the last year it's been dominated by the problems of inequality and the perils of inequality, but the truth is if you look at economic history, inequalities signal incentives to everyone in a dynamic market economy." The dozen or so Americans for Prosperity supporters were almost matched in number by attendees pretending to be from Americans for Prosperity. Among other Occupy signs in the crowd were "Let them eat cake," and "I hate libraries", while a woman dressed in business attire had a piece of cardboard bearing the message "Every man for himself" – the quote attributed to Jesus Christ. "There's a tradition of this," said a woman called Frances, an Occupy demonstrator who did not want to give her last name. "There was a group called Billionaires for Bush that would dress up and they would come to demonstrations, and they would do a little skit about how they were billionaires and how they were very happy with the Bush tax cuts and the wars for oil. "There's a tradition of street theatre and this was a little bit of street theatre." Not all the parodists were necessarily affiliated with Occupy, however, with the Americans for Prosperity rally seemingly acting as a dog whistle for satire. "I'm sick of the Occupy Wall Street protests … I'm sorry that I was born to a certain family and that I make more money than you. Maybe you should go and get a job," said a man who gave his name as John Wilker, who was clad in business attire and insisted he worked in the financial district. "These are true patriots here. They're fighting the good fight to still make sure Americans such as myself are still given the opportunities that we've had for decades and decades and decades." Wilker said he was not a part of the Occupy movement, but he and his companion Robert Stetson appeared to be engaging in the 'street theatre' Frances had mentioned. "I think it's fine that the 1% earns far more than the 99%, that's how it should be. There should be a group of people that has worked hard, that has been able to set themselves apart. It's America," Stetson said. He and Wilker, like the Occupy infiltrators, were repeatedly questioned by the green T-shirt wearing Americans for Prosperity, rather derailing the rally and distracting from speakers. The event had been organised as part of the group's "Failing Agenda" bus tour across the US. Americans for Prosperity has three coaches crossing the country, drawing attention to what it sees as Obama's failings on the economy, and Steve Lonegan, the organisation's New Jersey state director had described its stop outside the Rockefeller Center in New York as having an anti-Occupy theme. But after Lonegan kicked off the rally just after 10.30am, summarising Obama's "failing agenda" and describing the need to "return ourselves to free market capitalism", bickering swiftly broke out in the crowd as Americans for Prosperity supporters sensed they were being infiltrated. A red-haired Americans for Prosperity supporter was among the more vocal. "I built my own business, OK? Nobody gave it to me. I built it. What about you, who paid for your shoes? Who paid for your shoes?," she inquired as she tailed an Occupier bearing a "Let them eat cake" sign through the crowd. "I was letting her know that my family, my mother – a single mother – had to support us," the red-haired woman told the Guardian. "That my mother took care of us and she was very poor. That when I was a little girl, we had to eat oatmeal, and our desert was a piece of toast with a little sugar on it. I let her know that my family had nothing and we boot-strapped our way up on our own."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Hotline flooded with calls from parents asking for help in event of being picked up under SB 1070 'show-me-your-papers' provision Latinos living without immigration papers in Arizona have begun bombarbing helplines and lawyers' offices with anxious requests about how to provide for their children should they be arrested under a controversial new police power that came into effect this week. A phone line hosted by the Arizona branch of the American Civil Liberties Union has received almost 4,000 calls in just two days, many from anxious parents who fear that their children could be left abandoned should they be picked up under the so-called 'show-me-your-papers' provision. Hundreds have been asking for help setting up a "power of attorney", which gives a relative or friend who has US citizenship the right to care for minors in such an eventuality. "People are terrified. They fear that they will go to the store to buy groceries and won't get home and their kids will be left alone at school," said Luz Santiago, a pastor in Mesa. She said she has personally handled about 50 requests for power of attorney since Tuesday. The show-me-your-papers clause is the most deeply contested of the provisions of SB 1070, an Arizona law that was passed in 2010 that has set the benchmark for a wave of hardline immigration laws clamping down on undocumented families that have swept across several states. Under its terms, police officers are required to investigate the immigration status of anyone they come across during normal police work and whom they suspect of being unauthorised. The law was snarled up in legal challenges that went up to the US supreme court. In June, the court struck down several elements of the legislation but allowed 'show me your papers' to go ahead pending local Arizona court approval. That approval was granted this week and the provision is now in effect. Phoenix, the capital of Arizona, is already braced for the new power having witnessed the impact of heavy-handed policing for years under the direction of the Joe Arpaio, America's toughest sheriff. Groups working with undocumented Hispanics are more concerned about other smaller towns such as Flagstaff and Prescott, which have large Latino populations but no experience of police officers acting as immigration agents. Tucson, Arizona's second-largest city, is calling a forum next Tuesday in which community leaders will meet the police chief Roberto Villasenor to discuss implementation of the clause. Regina Romero, who sits on the city council and who has convened the meeting, said the clear fear was that police would be drawn into racial profiling. "We live 45 minutes from the Mexican border, so who else other than Mexicans are you going to be picking up? You are not going to be looking for Canadians in this part of the country," she said. Alessandra Soler, head of the ACLU in Arizona, said that there was already evidence that Tucson police were making contact inappropriately with US border patrol officers even for such mundane issues as help with translation. "It's extremely problematic when you have local police contacting border patrol when there is no good reason." The ACLU and other groups have an outstanding civil rights action against SB 1070 still lodged with the state's appeal court. That legal attempt to put a stop to 'show me your papers' will continue to pass through the courts, and the intention of opponents of the provision is to beef it up with real examples of racial profiling that might now occur under it. Lydia Guzman, the director of the hotline, said the aim now was to chronicle the impact of the new law. "The supreme court has given us the green light to present to the courts victims of racial profiling, so that's our challenge: show me the victims."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Israeli prime minister denies interfering in the US election, but his relationship with Barack Obama grows more antagonistic The political TV advertisement featuring Binyamin Netanyahu and the slogan "The world needs American strength, not apologies" is likely to fuel claims that the Israeli prime minister is interfering in the US presidential election in support of Republican candidate Mitt Romney. It comes increasing during anxiety that Netanyahu has overplayed his hand in displays of warmth and enthusiasm for Romney while his relationship with Barack Obama grows more antagonistic. Some say Netanyahu is gambling too heavily on a Romney victory on November 6 and that if Obama is re-elected, the potential blowback could be damaging not just for the prime minister but for Israel itself. Mark Regev, Netanyahu's spokesman, said the advertisement had "not been co-ordinated with us, we were not consulted and no one asked us for our permission". In an interview last week with the Jerusalem Post, the Israeli prime minister rejected accusations of interference in the election, saying they were "completely groundless". But, according to Yossi Verter writing in Haaretz recently, US officials had relayed to a "very senior Israeli figure" that "in the eyes of the Democratic administration, Netanyahu is perceived as campaigning on behalf of Mitt Romney." To the president and his aides, the Israeli prime minister's actions look like "crude, vulgar and unrestrained intervention in the US election campaign". Joe Klein of Time magazine described Netanyahu's recent behaviour as "an unprecedented attempt by a putative American ally to influence a US presidential campaign". The editor of the New Yorker, David Remnick, said Netanyahu seemed "determined, more than ever, to alienate the president of the United States and, as an ally of Mitt Romney's campaign, to make himself a factor in the 2012 election". Netanyahu's categoric denial of interference followed a leak by Israeli officials that Obama had declined to meet the Israeli prime minister during his visit to the US later this month. US officials denied there had been a deliberate rebuff. Some observers believed the story was planted by Netanyahu aides in order to show the president in a poor light for snubbing the leader of one of America's closest allies. The Israeli leader's fury with Obama appeared to reach a new level after his failed attempt to use the US election to bounce the president into setting clear "red lines" beyond which America will take military action against Iran's nuclear programme. In a press conference – from which footage was taken for the television advertisement – Netanyahu said without red lines, there could be no US-imposed red light to military action. In contrast, Romney has indicated that an administration led by him would take a more hawkish stance. His chief aide, Dan Senor, hinted that Romney as president would back a unilateral Israeli military strike on Iran. In July, Netanyahu warmly welcomed Romney to Israel along with his chief financial backer Sheldon Adelson, who is also a staunch supporter of the Israeli prime minister. The billionaire Adelson owns Israel Hayom, a free newspaper which invariably backs Netanyahu and his rightwing coalition government. During his visit, Romney said: "I would treat Israel like the friend and ally it is … I cannot imagine going to the United Nations, as Obama did, and criticising Israel in front of the world. You don't criticise your allies in public to achieve the applause of your foes. If there were places where we disagree, I would hold these disagreements in private conversations, not in public forums." Romney and Netanyahu also appear to share a common view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is to maintain the status quo rather than advance towards an independent state for the Palestinian people. In remarks secretly filmed in May and released this week, the Republican candidate said: "This is going to remain an unsolved problem … We sort of live with it." This reflects Netanyahu's approach towards the so-called peace process since his election in March 2009. The rapport between the two rightwing politicians dates back to the 1970s when they both worked at the Boston Consulting Group.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | She didn't think of herself as a child star, even when she was one. Dakota Fanning talks about growing up making movies and her latest role as a teenager with terminal cancer in Now Is Good 'Being brave lets no one off the grave," wrote Philip Larkin in Aubade. "Death is no different whined at than withstood." Tell that to Tessa, the 17-year-old heroine of Ol Parker's film Now Is Good, whose attitude is more rage against the dying of the light, while wisecracking. With her life foreshortened by leukaemia, Tessa draws up a checklist of experiences, including having sex and taking drugs, to work through before she dies. Knowing that Tessa is played by Dakota Fanning, Hollywood's pop-eyed poppet-of-choice for more than a decade, makes it difficult not to anticipate The Bucket List: The Early Years. Difficult but wrong. Against the odds, Now Is Good is good – very good. How could this have happened? "I think it's all in the way Ol avoids the obvious," Fanning, 18, decides. Sitting on a plump hotel sofa in a black skirt, cream blouse and black bow tie, she resembles a spiffy doll; when special emphasis is required, she brushes aside her platinum hair and widens the lamplight eyes that have earned her comparisons with Bette Davis. "Even though the movie's sad at times, Ol doesn't push you to cry. When you leave, you're upset, and at the same time it makes you want to make your life madder." What she actually says is "matter", but her Southern accent (she was raised in Georgia) gives the consonants a bouncy twang. Fanning's bristling performance, complete with clipped English accent, is the most chastening of the film's surprises. It's not that she hasn't already been exceptional in her career, which began with a washing powder commercial at the age of five before taking in sitcoms, voice acting (My Neighbour Totoro, Coraline) and blockbusters (Spielberg's War of the Worlds, the Twilight series). But the mere phrase "child star" brings with it potentially unhelpful connotations for a low-budget British film predicated on confronting the realities that Love Story left out. Parker was surprised when he heard she was interested. "I got the message that Dakota wanted to meet urgently, and that she intended to beat out anyone else who wanted the part. I thought, 'OK, it wasn't how I envisaged it, but let's see.' Within a minute of meeting her I was thinking, 'Oh God, you'd be fantastic.' She's genuinely remarkable. One of the things I loved is that she doesn't ask you to like her. She's a right cow for the first 45 minutes of the film. So when the gates start to open, it's paradoxically more moving." The picture provides more evidence that Fanning is unlikely to follow the child-star trajectory, which typically starts with a box-office smash and ends in prison, rehab or, in the most horrifying cases, reality TV. Perhaps it helps that she didn't see herself as a child star even when she was one. "I never liked that phrase," she says, wrinkling her nose. "I was just an actor who was seven or 10 or whatever." No one in Fanning's family had acted (though her younger sister Elle has followed her lead with eye-catching performances in Super 8 and Sofia Coppola's Somewhere). Her parents were persuaded by a drama teacher to find her an agent when she was five. Within 10 days, she had landed three commercials, including one alongside Ray Charles. She had her first major film role in I Am Sam, as the daughter of a man (Sean Penn) with learning difficulties, by the time she was six. "Every part would usually mean moving to a different state. But each time my mum would ask me: 'Are you sure you want to do this?' and I'd be, like, 'Sure!' Even if I said now that I didn't want to do it any more, that would be totally fine with everyone." In the corner of the room sits Fanning's manager, a petite, smiling woman, conspicuous suddenly in her silence. Parker credits Fanning with bringing a positive atmosphere to the set of Now Is Good. "She stayed in the same crappy places as the rest of us and mucked in and was fine about basically taking no money so what we had could go on the film. I've never heard of anyone else who gives presents to every member of the cast and crew, and sends handwritten letters at the end of the shoot to every head of department, telling them what they meant to her and thanking them for some specific thing." Indeed, even a quick-fire word-association game about her fellow stars scores a disappointing zero on the bitch-o-meter. Presented with the name "Tom Cruise", she responds with "exciting". Kristen Stewart is "bestie". Robert De Niro (who terrorised her on screen in Hide and Seek) is "sweet", Robert Pattinson "funny", Penn "dedicated", Denzel Washington "strong". Spielberg earns the most effusive praise: "Mentor. Best of the best." She also worked with the late Tony Scott on Man on Fire. "Tony was so motivated about what we were doing, and he made everyone feel the same. I'm devastated, but I'm so pleased I got to know him." Presumably she has seen that violent thriller only recently, having turned 18 this year? "No, I saw it at the time," she trills. "It's just a movie. I knew they were fake fingers that Denzel cut off: I saw them in the makeup trailer." Any transition for Fanning between child and adult roles was elided or leapfrogged by choices she made a long time ago. Films such as Now Is Good or the recent rock biopic The Runaways have ratified her as a sophisticated performer, but the seeds of that maturity were sown when she played a 12-year-old rape victim in the overheated Southern drama Hounddog. Her disappointmentsadness at the media outcry remains vivid. "I felt that what the media did to me was sort of like what happened to my character," she sighs. "The negative attention made me feel I'd done something wrong for portraying this trauma that millions of people have gone through. I thought about anyone who was reading that stuff, and who had been through that ordeal: they would probably think, 'Well, I'll never tell anyone about what happened to me because this person did it in a movie and they're saying she's a bad person. ' But the point of the movie is that she thinks she's responsible. This is what victims can feel. I hope it didn't stifle anyone, because Hounddog is about finding your voice after going through something awful." She bellows in mock, but eloquent, indignation: "This is why we did the movie, damn it!" There was more controversy last year over an ad campaign she appeared in for the Marc Jacobs fragrance Oh, Lola! The Advertising Standards Authority banned the ad after ruling that the image of Fanning brandishing a perfume bottle between her thighs was "irresponsible" and guilty of "sexualising a child" (though Fanning was 17 when the picture was taken). She is dismissive of the uproar. "If you want to see a double meaning, I understand, but at the end of the day it's a perfume bottle." She is enrolled at the Gallatin School of Individualised Study, a college within New York University which enables students to create their own major: "I've been doing everything from the mythical to the Victorian novel." Sure, she still gets stared at. "You never get totally used to it, but it doesn't bother me." There was, she says, no question of throwing in her lot with education; instead, classes will be fitted in among her upcoming projects, including, most promisingly, the eco-thriller Night Moves for Kelly the director Reichardt (Meek's Cutoff). "I didn't want to take four years off for school," she explains. "I still love life on set. If I explained why, you'd think it sounded awful. 'Oh, we wake up rilly early and work rilly long hours and the lights are rilly hot.' But it's where I feel most comfortable. I'm at home there."
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Suspect James Holmes has been charged with 142 counts, including murder and attempted murder, over 12 deaths in June Prosecutors are seeking more charges against the suspect in the US theater rampage that killed 12 in one of the worst mass shootings in the country's history, a new court document says. At a hearing Thursday, prosecutors also gave up their efforts to get access to a notebook by suspect James Holmes that they think details a violent attack. The document filed Wednesday didn't give details of the 10 more counts requested against Holmes. A judge has issued a gag order limiting what information lawyers can publicly disclose. Holmes has been charged with 142 counts, including murder and attempted murder, in the June 20 attack at a midnight screening of the latest Batman movie. Fifth-eight people were wounded in the shooting as the gunman roamed the darkened theater. Defense attorneys have said Holmes is mentally ill. Holmes appeared more animated during Thursday's hearing. The bright orange hair he had in earlier appearances was gone, replaced with short brown hair. He smiled and glanced around the courtroom Prosecutors had wanted access to a notebook sent by Holmes to a university psychiatrist that purportedly contains descriptions of a violent attack. But a judge on Aug. 30 ruled that they could not disprove a doctor-patient relationship between Holmes and University of Colorado psychiatrist Lynne Fenton. Prosecutors had argued that the notebook is fair game because Holmes wasn't going to be undergoing therapy because he planned to be dead or in prison after the shooting rampage. But on Thursday, deputy district attorney Rich Orman told the judge that prosecutors didn't want to delay proceedings for Holmes. If mental health becomes an issue, Orman said, Holmes would have to waive any doctor-patient privilege and prosecutors would gain access to the notebook. Holmes was a graduate student in the neuroscience program at the University of Colorado. Prosecutors said Holmes did poorly on a key exam and withdrew on June 10 while he was stockpiling guns, ammunition and body armor ahead of the shooting. His apartment was found booby-trapped after the shooting.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Hamid Karzai dismisses Mohammad Gulab Mangal, a key ally of the west, along with nine other governors in political shakeup One of Britain's allies in the Afghan war has been been sacked in a political shakeup by President Hamid Karzai that saw 10 provincial governors replaced or removed. Karzai announced he would remove Mohammad Gulab Mangal from office as governor of the vital province of Helmand, a central focus in the Afghan war and the responsibility of the British military. Karzai's office declined to say why Mangal had been removed or if he would be reappointed to another governorship or political position. The southern province was the centre of the Afghan drug trade and a Taliban stronghold, making it a focal point for NATO and Afghan officials. Helmand claimed nearly double the number of coalition soldiers' lives compared to Kandahar, the second most deadly province in Afghanistan. Mangal played a key role in efforts to regain control of the province, quickly winning favour among international military and diplomatic officials. When he came to office in Helmand in 2008, he'd held governorships continuously since 2004 starting in Paktika and then moving to Laghman. He presided over Helmand during one of the most critical periods of the war, overseeing the influx of surge troops as NATO forces launched the Marjah offensive in 2010, one of the biggest campaigns of the Afghan war. "Before his governorship there was complete insecurity in the province," said Muhammad Hassan Haqyar, an independent political analyst in Kabul, who explained that the province saw major improvements under Mangal's watch. "There were also the good relations he had with the foreigners. They were definitely good for the people of Helmand. If you have good relations with international organizations, it helps you bring reconstruction to the province." The British embassy in Kabul put out a statement saying Mangal "made a real difference to the life of ordinary Afghans in Helmand". Previous attempts to oust Mangal by Karzai led to direct intervention from senior British figures, as he was seen as a man with whom they could work. Still, in manyways Mangal remained a controversial figure. Despite his generally positive relations with foreigners, the release of the Wikileaks diplomatic cables in 2010 revealed that he did not always have glowing reviews of his international counterparts. In the cables, Mangal privately criticised the British military for not leaving their bases enough and having only limited interaction with the local population. Among locals, there were also allegations that Mangal and his administration used the poppy eradication program to extort farmers and generate revenue for his administration. While these allegations were never confirmed, they were common. Despite these allegations, a number of locals say that during Mangal's tenure as governor the province, witnessed dramatic improvements in both security and development. Habiba Sadat, a member of parliament from Helmand, says that while she never had any personal problems with the governor, he was regarded as a divisive figure in the province. "When I myself used to go to Helmand people would come cry to me because they had problems with the current governor. Also the security problems have recently increased and there were several attacks against police and checkpoints," she says. "This was the right decision. A lot of people in Helmand are happy about it." Throughout Afghanistan, a total of 10 governors, including Mangal, will be removed or reassigned. The move comes during efforts by the Karzai administration to improve government efficiency to address concerns among foreign donors. "We needed to change some governors because some provinces need better governance and better governments, some provinces needed fresh blood, and some governors will change to other provinces," says Hamid Elmi, a spokesman for Karzai. "Of course some governors were not able to carry out their duties and they were not efficient any more so we needed fresh blood." In Afghanistan, governors are appointed by the president rather than elected. The 10 provinces with new governors include Kabul, Helmand, Takhar, Faryab, Logar, Laghman, Wardak, Baghlan, Nimroz, and Badghis.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Ads, which critics say 'promote hate', were initially rejected by transport authority but later allowed as expression of free speech Muslim civil rights groups and community organisations have condemned a series of anti-Islamic advertisements that will be appearing in New York's subway stations next week. The ads had initially been rejected by the city's Metropolitan Transport Authority (MTA) but were later allowed after a legal appeal ruled them to be expressions of freedom of speech. One ad reads: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad." The ads are set to appear in at least 10 of the city's 400 subways stations and have been designed and paid for by the controversial American Freedom Defence Initiative, which is led by outspoken anti-Islamist activist Pamela Geller. The AFDI has been termed an "active anti-Muslim group" by the civil rights watch dog organisation the Southern Poverty Law Centre. "You are talking about people like me being called a "savage"," said Linda Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York. "It is all bubbling up. I know there is freedom of speech, but with freedom of speech comes responsibility. This promotes hate." The AFDI first came to prominence during a prolonged fight about the building of an Islamic cultural centre in downtown Manhattan. Its critics dubbed the project a "Ground Zero mosque" and waged a high-profile campaign against it that many said was Islamaphobic. The SPLC termed Geller "the anti-Muslim movement's most visible and flamboyant figurehead." Ads similar to the ones set to appear in New York have already been put on buses in San Francisco. However, the local transport authority in the city, known as Muni, donated the funds raised by the ad to the city's Human Rights Commission and also ran their own ad next to it that stated: "Muni doesn't support this message." The AFDI has also sought to run the ads in Washington DC but authorities there have delayed them for public safety concerns. Muslim civil rights groups said the ads were coming at an especially sensitive time as world politics are already being rocked by violent protests and attacks on American embassies in the wake of the production of an anti-Islamic film made by an Egyptian Coptic Christian living in California. It also comes after several high-profile incidents in the US, including the burning of a mosque in Joplin, Missouri. "They add to the overall picture of anti-Muslim feeling that is growing up in our nation," said Ibrahim Hooper, a director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The renewed controversy over the ads also comes on the same day as a major global report by the Pew Research Centre identified a rise of religious intolerance worldwide, including in the US. On the two measures the survey used – called "social hostility" and "government restrictions" - the US moved up the scale for the first time in both areas. When it came to official restrictions the US went from a low category to moderate, but when it came to the social hostilities index the country went from the lower end of the moderate scale to the upper end.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Footage of Israeli prime minister edited by group meant to air in US Jewish districts amid talk of tension with Obama A new political ad produced by a fringe nonprofit group uses footage of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu warning about Iran's nuclear program in order to attack President Barack Obama. The group, Secure America Now, has spent $400,000 to air the ad in heavily Jewish districts in south Florida, including Miami, West Palm Beach and Fort Myers, Politico reported. "The fact is that every day that passes, Iran gets closer and closer to nuclear bombs," Netanyahu says in the ad. "The world tells Israel, 'Wait, there's still time.' And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?'" The ad concludes with the tagline, "The world needs American strength. Not apologies." One of the nonprofit group's founders, John McLaughlin, was an adviser to Netanyahu's Likud party in 2006 and has also worked for former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. As a 501(c)4 group devoted to "social welfare", the group is not required to disclose its donors. The ad is the latest in a series of appearances by Netanyahu in the heated US presidential election. The prime minister made a point of being photographed with Republican challenger Mitt Romney on his visit to Israel in July and praised the candidate's views on Iran. In a Jerusalem press conference on the 9/11 anniversary, Netanyahu criticized the Obama administration's refusal to notify Iran of a "red line" that would trigger an attack on its nuclear facilities. Complaints by the prime minister's office about Obama declining a meeting at the UN next week have been eagerly used by Republicans in attacks on the president. Netanyahu's remarks in the ad are sentences taken out of order from the 11 September press conference, which followed a meeting with the Bulgarian prime minister. The likelihood that the ad will have an impact on the US election is extremely small. Netanyahu, who has been fighting the erosion of his domestic political coalition, is a polarizing figure among Jewish voters, who support the president by a large 69-25 margin, according to the latest poll by the American Jewish Committee. A single-digit minority of Jewish voters say Israel policy is the most important factor in determining their votes. The president is also leading Romney in Florida, according to most polls, with one by Fox News this week giving him a five-point advantage, 49-44. But the use of Netanyahu's remarks in an anti-Obama swing-state ad underlines the extent to which his unusually public attacks on the administration's policy have become intensely politicized, and could have deeper consequences for his relationship with the White House in the apparently likely event that Obama wins in November. Previous ads produced by Secure America Now include one from July called Are We Safer? that uses graphic footage of the 9/11 attacks and an actor warning that "our president apologizes for America". The International Atomic Energy Agency reported last month that Iran had installed more than 2,100 centrifuges inside a fortified underground facility known as Fordow and continues to produce nuclear fuel. Only about a third of the centrifuges are operating, however, and the program was not close to producing a sufficient quantity of sufficiently enriched fuel to produce a weapon, according to inspectors, who continue to have access to the site.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Census finds that more young people are moving away from home, but numbers showing food stamp rise could hurt Obama The US appears to be emerging slowly from recession as young people leave home to look for work and historic increases in poverty start to slow, according to the latest census data. But the recovery is still leaving many Americans behind. The Census bureau released its 2011 American Community Survey (ACS), a wide-ranging look at the nation's economy and communities, on Thursday. The survey found some signs of hope for the jobs and housing markets that were hit so hard by the recession. About 12% of the nation's population, or 36.5 million people, moved to a new home in 2011, up from a record low of 11.6% the previous year. Moves among young adults aged 25 to 29 increased to 24.6% from a low of 24.1% in the previous year. The number of young adults living with their parents also fell to 13.6% from 14.2% in the previous year. The census found that median incomes dropped in 18 states, down from 35 states in 2010. In a potential blow to President Barack Obama, incomes dropped in Nevada, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida, all swing states in the 2012 election. Despite some signs of recovery the census shows poverty remains a huge issue. About 15.9% of the US population had income below the poverty level in 2011, an increase from 15.3% in 2010. The number of people in poverty increased from 46.2 to 48.5 million during the same time period. While the poverty rate has now increased for four years in a row, the percentage increase between 2010 and 2011 was smaller than the change between 2008 and 2009, and between 2009 and 2010. The poorest metropolitan area was McAllen-Edinburgh-Mission in the Rio Grande valley of Texas. Some 37.7% of people in the area were living below the poverty line in 2011. The lowest poverty level was found in metropolitan Washington where 8.3% were in poverty. And while poverty slowed, food stamp use continued to climb. Food stamps have become an explosive political issue in the 2012 election. Earlier this month Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney used the food stamps issue to attack Obama's economic record.
"When the president took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. And now that number is 15 million higher, almost 50% higher. Now, 47 million people on food stamps. You've got Americans falling into poverty under this president," he told Fox News. According to ACS 13% of US households received food stamps last year, the highest level on record and equal to one in eight families.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Activists post video purporting to show aftermath of attack east of Aleppo where regime claims to have killed 100 Afghan fighters An air strike on a petrol station in northern Syria has killed more than 50 people, activists have claimed. The attack took place in al-Raqqa province, around 100 miles (160km) east of war-torn Aleppo. A video posted online, which purportedly showed the aftermath, revealed a scene of devastation as locals and emergency workers scrambled amid fire and wreckage. Activists claim the petrol station was attacked on Thursday afternoon by a jet fighter that had circled above it hours before. The Syrian air force has been increasingly active over much of the country's towns and cities in recent months, but had rarely attacked in al-Raqqa. The bombing took place in Ain Issa village, around 25 miles south of the Turkish border, close to where rebels on Wedesday over-ran a border checkpoint. Fighting continued to rage in Syria's two biggest cities, with suburbs of Aleppo again seeing pitched battles between regime forces backed by heavy artillery in the west of the city and guerilla forces in the east. In the capital Damascus, regime forces continued to sweep through areas that had been deemed sympathetic to opposition groups. Residents said jets and helicopters were a constant presence over the south-east suburb of Douma, where rebels claimed earlier on Thursday to have shot down a helicopter that had been firing on sites below. Syria's information minister later acknowledged that one of its military helicopters had crashed, but claimed it had done so after a grazing a passenger jet mid-air, which had later landed safely. Frequent attacks from above on rebel positions, often in civilian neighbourhoods, have caused immense damage in Homs, Hama and Idlib as well, where air strikes have taken place most days since mid-July. Violence has intensified across the country since then, with almost all parts of Syria now engaged in civil war. Rebel gains in Aleppo and Damascus during days that followed have not yielded the decisive blows that opposition commanders had expected. Rather regime forces, which had initially been on the back foot, have clawed back losses of territory in Damascus and are inching forward in Aleppo, where the battle is being steadily joined by militants from outside Syria, some of whom espouse global jihadism. Syria's national news agency said 100 such Afghan fighters had been killed in Aleppo on Thursday, a claim strongly denied by rebel leaders on the ground. The arrival of foreigners to key battlefields has been a point of contention for the Free Syrian Army, whose units are sometimes cautiously welcoming the strangers. "They are trying to form their own leadership groups," said one rebel officer in southern Turkey. "We won't let that happen. This is our revolution. It is not a jihad as they see it." The International Committee for the Red Cross has renewed warnings of a looming humanitarian crisis as refugees continue to stream from Turkey into neighbouring Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, where local authorities are struggling to provide food and shelter for them.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Authorities in Islamabad prepare for more protests over Innocence of Muslims film as violence escalates The Pakistani army was drafted in to protect foreign embassies on Thursday after thousands of violent protesters clashed with police on the eve of an expected day of anti-western fury across the Islamic world. Dozens of people were wounded during vicious street fighting after masses of students, many carrying banners of hardline religious parties, attempted to converge on the diplomatic quarter in the heart of the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. The outbreak of serious violence for the first time in the capital comes amid escalating tension, with protests held on consecutive days all around the country. On Thursday the rising threat prompted the US state department to harden its travel warning for American citizens, explicitly warning them against non-essential trips to Pakistan. Authorities in Islamabad had been making significant preparations for what many fear will be the most violent day of protests since controversy first flared around a YouTube video called Innocence of Muslims that ridicules Islam. In response the government declared Friday "a day of love for the prophet", a move which was welcomed by the Taliban and which risks substantially increasing the already high threat of violence on the traditional Islamic holy day. But the crowds of young men made short work of the various measures put in place, with protesters simply pushing to one side some of the huge metal sea containers that had been positioned to seal off sensitive areas of the capital, including the enclave. Police did manage to prevent crowds reaching the entrance to the diplomatic enclave, but that simply prompted them to fight on a nearby road, directly outside the Serena, Islamabad's grandest five-star hotel. Teargas canisters were lobbed back at police lines and into the grounds of the Serena, prompting police to fire live rounds into the air amid some unconfirmed reports that some demonstrators had been injured by gun shots. At one stage a group of police was surrounded on all sides by demonstrators and were pelted with stones. Protesters set fire to the few things available to them on the wide boulevards of Islamabad, including traffic cones and police checkposts. Rehman Baig, a posgraduate student, said the mission of the crowd was to reach the US embassy, a large complex deep inside the diplomatic enclave, and demand the dismissal of the ambassador. "The infidels want to capture Muslim lands, defame Muslims and plunder our wealth," he said. He also demanded to know why the makers of Innocence of Muslims, have not been arrested. "If they can find and kill Osama then why can't they catch this film-maker and punish him?" Many demonstrators carried placards, including one saying: "Obama we are all Osama", and the flags of hardline religious parties, including the banner of Jamiat-ud-Dawa, a group associated with banned terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | US court filing is the latest in a continuing round of lawsuits between the two rival companies The iPhone 5 doesn't go on sale until Friday – but already rival Samsung says it will add it to a series of lawsuits over Apple equipment in the US, alleging that it infringes a series of patents. The South Korean company said in a US court filing that "Samsung anticipates that it will file, in the near future, a motion to amend its infringement contentions to add the iPhone 5 as an accused product." The move is the latest in a continuing round of lawsuits between the two companies, which together control about half of the world's smartphone market. It comes after Apple booked orders for more than 2m of the new iPhone 5 in the first weekend. Samsung and Apple are locked in patent battle in 10 countries and the stakes are high as the two vie for top spot in the booming smartphone market. In late August Apple won a court battle in which it was awarded $1bn in damages against Samsung, which had been accused of infringing a number of software patents used on the iPhone, as well as its "trade dress" – the visual elements that make it unique. The jury in the case turned down all of the patent counterclaims by Samsung. Samsung has indicated that it will appeal the jury's ruling and the fine. Apple meanwhile is seeking to block the sale of a number of Samsung phones and tablets in the US, including the Korean company's flagship Galaxy S3 smartphone. Both companies are also raising marketing spending to promote their latest products ahead of the crucial year-end holiday season. "Based on information currently available, Samsung expects that the iPhone 5 will infringe the asserted Samsung patents-in-suit in the same way as the other accused iPhone models," Samsung said in a statement. It also said in a separate statement on Thursday: "Apple continues to take aggressive legal measures that will limit market competition. Under these circumstances, we have little choice but to take the steps necessary to protect our innovations and intellectual property rights." Apple Korea reiterated its position that it was the victim of copying, not vice versa. "At Apple, we value originality and innovation … We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy." Apple's victory over Samsung was also a blow to Google, whose Android software powers the Samsung phones and tablets that were found to infringe Apple patents. Samsung, the biggest Android phone maker, received a second US legal setback last week when a judge at the International Trade Commission said in a preliminary ruling that Apple did not violate patents owned by Samsung. The Korean firm was the world's top smartphone maker in the second quarter of 2012, shipping more than 50m phones, nearly double the Apple's 26m iPhone shipments.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Follow live updates as an intelligence reports details Iranian arms deliveries through Iraq and over its airspace and the Friends of Syria group are due to meet in The Hague
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | But some investors fear that with another €4.8bn to play with, Spanish PM Mariano Rajoy will put off requesting another bailout
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Pew Research Centre report says the US and UK are among countries showing a worrying rise in religious discrimination Three-quarters of the world's 7 billion population live in countries with high levels of government restriction on religion or where there exist serious "social hostilities" involving faith issues, according to researchers, with the US and the UK among countries showing a worrying rise in religious discrimination. A research project conducted by the US thinktank Pew Research Centre's Forum on Religion and Public Life, whose findings were published on Thursday under the title The Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion, identified a sharp rise in religious restrictions worldwide. It reports a staggering 6% increase in restrictions in the four years until 2010. The survey is the second successive one by Pew to note rising intolerance worldwide. Painting a stark picture of a "rising tide" of intolerance and government restrictions on religious matters, the report cites evidence including "crimes, malicious acts and violence motivated by religious hatred or bias, as well as increased government interference with worship or other religious practices". Rather than seeing a moderation of the tendency of towards religious intolerance the project has seen an acceleration, reporting a 63% rise from mid-2009 to mid-2010 in the number of countries that increased government restrictions, in comparison with Pew's last survey that had noted a 56% rise. Remarking on this trend, the report says: "The number of countries where harassment or intimidation of specific religious groups took place rose from 147 as of mid-2009 to 160 as of mid-2010. In the new survey the UK is second in the group of countries marked "high" – on a scale from very high (which takes in the top 17 offending countries) to low – on one of the two indices used to evaluate levels of intolerance: "social hostility" relating to religion. That places it after Kenya and above Burma, marking a rise since the last survey. In the group of European countries only Russia fared worse on this index. In the second index – government restrictions – the UK remains on the "moderate" list. Among other countries showing marked increases in religious intolerance for the first time – albeit still only classed as "moderate" – was the US. Among countries that registered an increase for the first time on both scales was the US, which moved from a low category of religious restrictions to moderate. "During the period from mid-2009 to mid-2010," the report's authors note, "a number of the sources used in the study reported an increase in the number of incidents at the state and local level in which members of some religious groups faced restrictions on their ability to practice their faith." These included "religious groups in the US [which had] faced difficulties in obtaining zoning permits to build or expand houses of worship, religious schools or other religious institutions. A more marked increase was recorded in the social hostilities index, moving the US from the lower end of the moderate range of hostilities to the upper end of the moderate range. This was largely driven by an increase in religion-related terrorist attacks in the year to mid-2010. The report also noted legislation by some states to ban "sharia law" or prevent the construction of mosques" The percentage of the world's population living in countries with low levels of restriction on religion, the report calculates, declined between 2007 and 2010 by more than 50% from 14% to only 6% at the end of the period studied. The report is being published, ironically perhaps, in the midst of a rash of deadly protests in the Muslim world following the posting online of a crude video that offensively mocks the life of Muhammad. The survey reports that in all five major regions of the world – including the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa where religious restrictions previously had been declining – freedom of faith was coming under increasing pressure. While the survey notes growing religious restrictions in places where that might be expected, including in Nigeria which has seen a spate of deadly attacks against Christians, as well as in Indonesia, where pressure from Islamists forced the closing of dozens of churches, it also identifies growing problems in some western democracies including Switzerland – which in 2009 banned the construction of minarets – and the US. The report – which detailed religious freedom up until the end of 2010 and is the third such survey Pew has carried out – added that it had identified a four-year high involving the "harassment or intimidation of particular religious groups" – including five out of seven of the major religious groupings – including Jews, Christians, Buddhists and adherents of folk or traditional religions. Not all religions, however, faced harassment in the same way. "Christians," the survey reports, "were harassed by government officials or organisations in 95 countries in the year ending in mid-2010 and by social groups or individuals in 77 countries. Muslims also were more likely to be harassed by governments (74 countries) than by social groups or individuals (64 countries). Jews, by contrast, experienced social harassment in many more countries than they faced government harassment." The survey marks 197 countries and territories using two indices: a government restrictions index that marks countries on a list of 20 indicators of religious restrictions, including efforts to prohibit the practise of various faiths, and a social hostilities index. This second measure attempts to calculate levels of religious hostility by individuals and groups against rival sects and religions. Using these two scales the survey's authors identified an increase of countries with "very high" levels of government restrictions from 10 in 2007 to 18 in 2010. In that period 10 countries were added to the list of countries with very high levels of restriction – Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Indonesia, Maldives, Russia, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen – while only two, Brunei and Turkey, were actually downgraded. The report adds: "The number of countries with very high social hostilities also rose, from 10 as of mid-2007 to 15 as of mid-2010, as five countries (Egypt, Nigeria, the Palestinian territories, Russia and Yemen) were added to the 'very high' category and none were removed (see table above). Meanwhile, half of the 197 countries in the study (98) had low levels of social hostilities in mid-2010, down from 114 in mid-2007." North Korea was excluded from the study because of the difficulty of accessing up-to-date information on the country. Perhaps even more telling has been the level of increase of countries experiencing social hostilities over religion, with four times as many countries (17) showing a marked increase as had seen a decrease (four). The increase in religious restrictions comes as recent surveys have appeared to demonstrate that the world is becoming more religious. Commenting on the rise in the current survey for the UK on the "social hostility" index, lead researcher Brian Grim said it had been driven by a number of issues. "That included Christians voicing concern about being able to talk about their religion, a spike in anti-semitic incidents and also anti-Muslim sentiment. It also included concern about issues within the Muslim community itself and honour killings." He added that in the period covered by the survey there had been an upsurge in sectarian tension in Northern Ireland which had since subsided.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This black comedy about unhappy assassins who have hit hard times is a compelling comment on economic bloodletting in the real world Movies about assassins generally show them as ascetic samurai loners, broodingly dismantling and reconstructing their weapons as they wait for the hit in monkish seclusion, chain-smoking, keeping small talk to a minimum with their employers, who are in a similar laconic state, and who, in any case, may be secretly awed by their hitman's icy professionalism. Killing Them Softly is different. This killer, Cogan – played by Brad Pitt – is relaxed and talkative; he is craggy, leonine, casual and imperious; absolutely on top of his game, but with a flaw. He cannot kill anyone he's met, and hates to kill up close, squeamish about them begging for mercy. So he has to murder at a distance; it's what he calls "killing them softly", though without acknowledging Roberta Flack. Cogan is part antihero, part choric observer, terrifically acted by Pitt in this compelling movie from Andrew Dominik, the director who made Chopper (2000) and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007). He has adapted the 1974 crime novel Cogan's Trade by George V Higgins and updated it to the America of 2008, the era of financial meltdown and political changeover. When I first saw this at Cannes this year, I found some of the overtly satirical moments too emphatic. The TV news on in the background will persistently give us Bush or Obama at ironic moments. But maybe the film's politics are part of its swaggering insolence. It is a violent ensemble nightmare of middle-management mobster incompetence in the tradition of Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, Casino and TV's The Sopranos. The drama is thrillingly and casually pessimistic, a world of weary tough guys complaining about having to clear up the mess left by other screw-ups, and for less money than they'd hoped for. This is a stiflingly and reekingly unhappy male world. Dominik deploys two classic tropes. From Pulp Fiction, there is the "Royale with Cheese" banal pre-violence conversation, and the classic gangster "betrayal" misdirection, which I associate with the buildup to Tommy DeVito's made-guy ceremony from GoodFellas. Someone gets shot, suddenly and at close range, having been lulled along with the audience into a false sense of security by a chat about what they were going to do later. The political dimension comes in two parts. In 2008, US taxpayers were asked to bail out banks for the sake of confidence and prestige, and these taxpayers also had to tighten their belts. Here, local wiseguy Markie (Ray Liotta) has to be whacked for robbing some other wiseguys' poker game: he didn't do it, but someone has to be seen to get killed for the sake of confidence and prestige, and hitmen have to accept a reduced fee in the economic climate. Cogan is contracted by an anonymous apparatchik played by Richard Jenkins, whose own criminal superiors are as cautious as any of the suits in corporate America: their paralysis is another symptom of the economic times. The robbery was actually done by two ridiculous jerks, Frankie and Russell, superbly played by Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn, whose boss must also now be whacked: this is Johnny "Squirrel" Amato, played by Vincent Curatola. But Cogan subcontracts this wet job, and here is where Dominik shows how Cogan is guilty of sentimental incompetence. He gives the work to his old friend Mickey, hilariously played by James Gandolfini, who to Cogan's polite dismay, shows himself to be nowadays unequal to the task of contract killing: a heavy drinker and prostitute addict who is morosely in unrequited love with one of the girls he despises. Mickey exhibits the undignified emotions Cogan hates in his own victims. Could it be that Mickey, poor Mickey, is the endgame those in the business face? If they survive, that is. He is their future, in worse shape than anything in the morgue. Crime equals chaos in Killing Them Softly. It's a reminder of what Tom Wolfe wrote: criminals are not romantic desperados who go outside the law to get what they want. They are ruthless, greedy, stupid people who get themselves into a progressively worsening, violent mess. There is an entropy in Killing Them Softly, a spiralling down; every scene, with its quarrelling and its bitching, its bantering and its bloodsplattering, is not leading anywhere as such – it's just an open-ended vivisectional demonstration of unhappiness and confusion. Dominik gives Pitt his grandstanding moment in terms of one satirical aria of a speech, contrived perhaps, and its moral-drawing jars with the icy amorality of all that has gone before. But it is delivered with such angrily dismissive power. This is an unrepentantly cynical take on the hope-and-change promised to the US in 2008; this year's election race makes it look even bleaker, an icily confident black comedy of continued disillusion. Rating: 5/5
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Times are tough and this black comedy about unhappy hitmen watching their lives go down the pan is a compelling comment on economic bloodletting in the real world Movies about assassins generally show them as ascetic samurai loners, broodingly dismantling and reconstructing their weapons as they wait for the hit in monkish seclusion, chain-smoking, keeping small talk to a minimum with their employers, who are in a similar laconic state, and who, in any case, may be secretly awed by their hitman's icy professionalism. Killing Them Softly is different. This killer, Cogan – played by Brad Pitt – is relaxed and talkative; he is craggy, leonine, casual and imperious; absolutely on top of his game, but with a flaw. He cannot kill anyone he's met, and hates to kill up close, squeamish about them begging for mercy. So he has to murder at a distance; it's what he calls "killing them softly", though without acknowledging Roberta Flack. Cogan is part antihero, part choric observer, terrifically acted by Pitt in this compelling movie from Andrew Dominik, the director who made Chopper (2000) and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007). He has adapted the 1974 crime novel Cogan's Trade by George V Higgins and updated it to the America of 2008, the era of financial meltdown and political changeover. When I first saw this at Cannes this year, I found some of the overtly satirical moments too emphatic. The TV news on in the background will persistently give us Bush or Obama at ironic moments. But maybe the film's politics are part of its swaggering insolence. It is a violent ensemble nightmare of middle-management mobster incompetence in the tradition of Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, Casino and TV's The Sopranos. The drama is thrillingly and casually pessimistic, a world of weary tough guys complaining about having to clear up the mess left by other screw-ups, and for less money than they'd hoped for. This is a stiflingly and reekingly unhappy male world. Dominik deploys two classic tropes. From Pulp Fiction, there is the "Royale with Cheese" banal pre-violence conversation, and the classic gangster "betrayal" misdirection, which I associate with the buildup to Tommy DeVito's made-guy ceremony from GoodFellas. Someone gets shot, suddenly and at close range, having been lulled along with the audience into a false sense of security by a chat about what they were going to do later. The political dimension comes in two parts. In 2008, US taxpayers were asked to bail out banks for the sake of confidence and prestige, and these taxpayers also had to tighten their belts. Here, local wiseguy Markie (Ray Liotta) has to be whacked for robbing some other wiseguys' poker game: he didn't do it, but someone has to be seen to get killed for the sake of confidence and prestige, and hitmen have to accept a reduced fee in the economic climate. Cogan is contracted by an anonymous apparatchik played by Richard Jenkins, whose own criminal superiors are as cautious as any of the suits in corporate America: their paralysis is another symptom of the economic times. The robbery was actually done by two ridiculous jerks, Frankie and Russell, superbly played by Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn, whose boss must also now be whacked: this is Johnny "Squirrel" Amato, played by Vincent Curatola. But Cogan subcontracts this wet job, and here is where Dominik shows how Cogan is guilty of sentimental incompetence. He gives the work to his old friend Mickey, hilariously played by James Gandolfini, who to Cogan's polite dismay, shows himself to be nowadays unequal to the task of contract killing: a heavy drinker and prostitute addict who is morosely in unrequited love with one of the girls he despises. Mickey exhibits the undignified emotions Cogan hates in his own victims. Could it be that Mickey, poor Mickey, is the endgame those in the business face? If they survive, that is. He is their future, in worse shape than anything in the morgue. Crime equals chaos in Killing Them Softly. It's a reminder of what Tom Wolfe wrote: criminals are not romantic desperados who go outside the law to get what they want. They are ruthless, greedy, stupid people who get themselves into a progressively worsening, violent mess. There is an entropy in Killing Them Softly, a spiralling down; every scene, with its quarrelling and its bitching, its bantering and its bloodsplattering, is not leading anywhere as such – it's just an open-ended vivisectional demonstration of unhappiness and confusion. Dominik gives Pitt his grandstanding moment in terms of one satirical aria of a speech, contrived perhaps, and its moral-drawing jars with the icy amorality of all that has gone before. But it is delivered with such angrily dismissive power. This is an unrepentantly cynical take on the hope-and-change promised to the US in 2008; this year's election race makes it look even bleaker, an icily confident black comedy of continued disillusion. Rating: 5/5
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Protesters against a US-made anti-Islam film have clashed with police in Pakistan
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Follow live updates as an intelligence report details Iranian arms deliveries through Iraq and over its airspace and the Friends of Syria group meet in The Hague
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | A poor result could push Spanish prime minister Mariano Rajoy to seek a bailout, paving the way for ECB intervention
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Protesters against a US-made anti-Islam film clashed with police in Pakistan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Top aide to Mahmoud Abbas rejects Romney's recent video remark that Palestinians have 'no interest whatsoever' in peace A senior Palestinian official has said Republican US presidential candidate Mitt Romney is undermining hopes for peace and democracy in the Middle East. Saeb Erekat, a top aide to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, rejected Romney's recent video remark to donors that the Palestinians have "no interest whatsoever" in peace. Speaking at a news conference on Thursday, Erekat said "no one stands to gain more from peace than the Palestinians, and no one stands to lose from the absence of peace like the Palestinians." He said those who tolerated Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian territories were "working against democracy and peace". Erekat also urged world leaders to "create hope and opportunities, not despair".
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Ofcom rules that BSkyB can retain its broadcasting licences, but criticises former chairman James Murdoch's handling of the phone-hacking scandal BSkyB remains a fit and proper owner of broadcast licences, media regulator Ofcom has concluded. But the regulator is highly critical of the company's former chairman, James Murdoch, over his handling of the phone-hacking scandal. Ofcom criticised Murdoch, the News Corporation deputy chief operating officer and former Sky and News International chairman, for his "lack of action" over the News of the World phone-hacking affair. The regulator found that Murdoch's conduct in relation to News Group Newspapers "repeatedly fell short of the conduct to be expected of as a chief executive and chairman" and that his lack of action in relation to phone hacking was "difficult to comprehend and ill-judged". NGN was the News International subsidiary that published the News of the World, which was closed in July 2011 after the most damaging phone-hacking revelations emerged. Ofcom, which launched its "fit and proper" review of BSkyB's broadcast licences on 6 July 2011, the day before News International announced it was closing the News of the World, concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the pay-TV company was involved in phone hacking. The ruling found: "There is no evidence that Sky was directly or indirectly involved in any of the wrongdoing either admitted or alleged to have taken place at [the News of the World] or the Sun. "In the circumstances, and notwithstanding our views in relation to James Murdoch's conduct, we do not consider, having taken into account all the relevant factors, that on the evidence available to date Sky is no longer fit and proper to hold broadcast licences. "Whilst we consider that James Murdoch's conduct in various instances fell short of the standard to be expected of the chief executive officer and chairman, we do not find that James Murdoch's retention as a non-executive director of Sky means that Sky is not fit and proper to hold broadcast licences. "We recognise that whether it is appropriate for James Murdoch to be a director in light of the events is a matter for the board and shareholders of Sky." Sky welcomed the long-awaited ruling as its share price rose slightly in early trading on Thursday, up 5p – nearly 1% – to 733p at 9am. News Corp said it was pleased with Ofcom's ruling regarding Sky, but disagreed with the regulator's conclusions about Murdoch, saying they were "not at all substantiated by evidence". BSkyB said in a statement: "Ofcom is right to conclude that Sky is a fit and proper broadcaster. As a company, we are committed to high standards of governance and we take our regulatory obligations extremely seriously. As Ofcom acknowledges, our track record of compliance in broadcasting is good." "We are proud of our contribution as a broadcaster, the investments we make to increase choice for UK audiences and the wider benefits we create for the economy." News Corp said: "We are pleased that Ofcom recognises BSkyB as a fit and proper holder of a broadcast licence and remain proud of both News Corporation's and James Murdoch's distinguished record in facilitating the transformation of Sky into Britain's leading pay television and home communications provider. "We disagree, however, with certain of the report's statements about James Murdoch's prior actions as an executive and director, which are not at all substantiated by evidence. As Ofcom itself acknowledged, James deserves credit for his role as chief executive, then chairman and now non-executive director, in leading Sky to an outstanding record as a broadcaster, including its excellent compliance record." The Ofcom review was aimed at establishing whether the pay-TV broadcaster remained eligible to broadcast in the UK, given that News International owner News Corp is its largest shareholder, with a 39.1% stake. At the point Ofcom launched its review, on 6 July 2011, News Corp was still bidding to take full control of Sky. It abandoned the bid the following week in the face of mounting public and political outrage over News of the World phone hacking. After reviewing evidence subsequently submitted to the Commons culture, media and sport select committee and the Leveson inquiry, Ofcom concluded that Murdoch had no knowledge of an alleged News International cover-up of what has been branded the "industrial scale" of phone hacking at the News of the World. "The evidence available to date does not provide a reasonable basis to find that James Murdoch knew of widespread wrongdoing or criminality at [the News of the World] or that, by allowing litigation to be settled and by allowing NGN and News International executives to make the representations they did, he was complicit in a cover-up," the regulator said. However, Ofcom was critical of Murdoch's reaction to the payout to Professional Footballers Association chief executive Gordon Taylor in 2008. The regulator said it was clear at that point in 2008 that Murdoch was aware of the existence of new evidence that News of the World phone hacking may have gone beyond one rogue reporter – as News International was claiming at the time – in light of internal documents in relation to the Taylor settlement. But he did not follow up by asking to see the opinion of the senior counsel hired by the company or finding out for himself what the evidence on which the settlement was based was. "James Murdoch's exercise of responsibility was less than we would expect to see exhibited by a competent chief executive officer," the regulator concluded of this episode. Ofcom also criticised Murdoch for not taking seriously a Guardian article in July 2009 headlined "Murdoch papers paid £1m to gag phone hacking victims", which first revealed the Taylor settlement and that the practice went beyond a single rogue reporter at the News of the World. The regulator noted from Murdoch's own evidence to the culture select committee that he entrusted the handling of the response to the Guardian article to News International subordinates, rather than launch an investigation into whether phone hacking involved the three individuals referred to in internal communications. This information subsequently emerged during a culture select committee inquiry. "We consider that James Murdoch's failure to apprise himself of this information, given the information which he accepts he knew, fell short of the exercise of responsibility to be expected of the chief executive officer and the chairman," Ofcom said. Murdoch was also criticised for failing to respond meaningfully to a highly critical report by the culture select committee on phone hacking in 2010. "We consider this lack of action by the chairman of News International in response to a widely publicised highly critical select committee report to be both difficult to comprehend and ill-judged," Ofcom said. It also expresses bafflement over Murdoch's inaction when the phone-hacking scandal began to escalate with the publication of fresh evidence in the New York Times in September 2010 and with the launch of legal action by Sienna Miller, which became public in December 2010. Ofcom noted that Murdoch gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry earlier this year that he immediately moved to get his house in order with three specific courses of action: an internal investigation; action against any employees involved in wrongdoing; and seeking fresh legal advice to get to the bottom of what was really going on. "Having reviewed the relevant evidence relating to this period as a whole, we note that only one of these steps was taken in 2010," Ofcom concluded. "In light of the events which occurred in 2009 and 2010, in particular the publication of the [culture select committee] report, the growing civil litigation and the New York Times article, we find it difficult to comprehend James Murdoch's lack of action, given his responsibility as chairman." His father Rupert Murdoch, News Corp's chairman and chief executive, escapes censure by Ofcom. The regulator said it did not find the evidence provided a basis to conclude Rupert Murdoch had acted in a way that was inappropriate in relation to phone hacking, concealment or corruption by employees. Ofcom also found that BSkyB was not involved. "To date there is no evidence that Sky was directly or indirectly involved in any of the wrongdoing either admitted or alleged to have taken place at the News of the World." News Corp said: "We are also pleased that Ofcom determined that the evidence related to phone hacking, concealment and corruption does not provide any basis to conclude that News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch acted in a way that was inappropriate, and that there is similarly no evidence that James Murdoch deliberately engaged in any wrongdoing." If the regulator had decided that either James Murdoch – who stood down as chairman of News International in March 2012 and as chairman of BSkyB in April, but remains on the board of the broadcaster as a non-executive director – or the company itself were not fit and proper owners, the regulator could have revoked its licences. • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication". • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | One-day strike prompted by loss of diesel subsidy and plan to allow foreign supermarket chains into country Schools, shops and government offices were shut in some Indian states on Thursday as protesters blocked road and rail traffic as part of a one-day nationwide strike against economic reforms. The main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), joined by smaller parties from both the political left and right, called for the strike to protest against a 14% hike in heavily subsidised diesel prices, and a government decision that opens the door to foreign supermarket chains. The measures, part of a package of economic reforms aimed at boosting a sharply slowing economy, have triggered a political storm. ON TUESDAY, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's biggest ally pulled out of his INCREASINGLY shaky coalition, raising the risk of an early election. Bangalore, India's IT and outsourcing hub, was hard hit by the strike, but in Mumbai, the financial capital, banks and offices were open as usual. In New Delhi, shops were shut in BJP constituencies and there were fewer cars on the road, but the central business district was untouched. Across the country, morning commuters were left stranded at train stations and bus stops as protesters squatted on railway tracks and laid siege to some bus depots. Supporters of the rightwing Hindu nationalist BJP and other opposition parties also blocked some roads with burning tyres. "If we don't protest now, the central government will eliminate the poor and middle-class families," said Santi Barik as she protested in Bhubaneswar, the capital of the eastern state of Odisha. Government offices, businesses, schools and banks in Bhubaneswar were shut, and similar shutdowns were reported in other cities, including Hyderabad, the IT centre in Andhra Pradesh state that is home to local offices of Microsoft Corp and Google Inc. Police arrested dozens of opposition supporters who surrounded the biggest bus station in Andhra Pradesh. In Bangalore, most of the 3,500 staff employed by Intel Corp and 10,000 personnel at Cisco Systems Inc were reportedly asked to work from home. Infosys Ltd and Wipro Ltd gave workers the day off, but will ask them to work on Saturday instead. The Congress party-ruled coalition partially rolled backed a petrol price increase earlier this year after facing a similar strike. Some Congress officials have hinted the new 5 rupee per litre diesel price hike could be cut, and a new limit on subsidised cooking gas cylinders may also be raised. However, they have held firm against calls for the retail reform to be scrapped.
 | | | | | | | | | |  | |  | |  |
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire