|  |  |  | | | | | The Guardian World News | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | US appeals court grants stay over issue of mental illness, just before Florida serial killer was due to have lethal injection A US court has again blocked the scheduled execution of the serial killer John Errol Ferguson, who was convicted of eight murders in south Florida in the 1970s. The decision by the 11th US circuit court of appeals came during a flurry of court rulings over claims that 64-year-old John Errol Ferguson has a mental illness so severe he cannot be executed. Ferguson, a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions he's the "prince of God", had faced a planned lethal injection at 6pm on Tuesday in Florida's death chamber. Judges stepped in a few hours before that to halt proceedings. The state immediately appealed against the stay but the appeals court set a schedule for motions that may delay the execution at least until the first week of November. Ferguson was convicted of shooting eight bound and blindfolded people in south Florida in 1977, then killing a teenage couple months later in 1978 after they left a church event to get some ice cream. He had previously been ruled mentally competent to be executed and over recent days federal judges in Florida, Georgia and Washington have wrestled with his appeals. The execution had been scheduled after the Florida supreme court this month upheld a lower court ruling based on testimony by a panel of psychiatrists appointed by the state governor, Rick Scott. The state justices wrote that "Ferguson understands what is taking place and why". The latest ruling from the federal appeals court said it would explore whether the Florida supreme court's decision was an "unreasonable determination of the facts" based on Ferguson's documented history of mental illness. His lawyers have argued that Ferguson lacks rational understanding, because he suffers from delusions and believes God is preparing him to return to Earth after his execution to save the US from a communist plot.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Incoming CEO faces questions about his time as BBC director general when report into child abuse allegations was axed The incoming chief executive of the New York Times, Mark Thompson, is facing new questions over what he knew about the Jimmy Savile paedophile scandal when he was director general of the BBC, amid apparent inconsistencies in his public statements. Thompson, who is due to start his new job on 12 November, has already been publicly rebuked by the NYT's ombudsman, who caused a sensation by questioning his suitability for the role in a blogpost on Tuesday. Margaret Sullivan, the NYT public editor, also called for the paper to conduct more vigorous reporting into Thompson's knowledge of the scandal and allegations of a coverup. Adding to his woes, Thompson is now attempting to reconcile two apparently contradictory statements about what he knew about a report into Savile, the BBC TV and radio star who died last October, which was being prepared by BBC2's Newsnight programme. The report was pulled in December 2011, the reasons for which are now the subject of an independent inquiry. Newsnight's editor, Peter Rippon, has already had to "step aside". Thompson, whose role as NYT director general also carried the designation "editor in chief", told the paper on 13 October: "I was not notified or briefed about the Newsnight investigation, nor was I involved in any way in the decision not to complete and air the investigation. "I have no reason to doubt the public statement by the programme's editor, Peter Rippon, that the decision not to pursue the investigation was entirely his, and that it was made solely for journalistic reasons. "During my time as director general of the BBC, I never heard any allegations or received any complaints about Jimmy Savile." But in response to inquiries by the Times newspaper in London, Thompson admitted through his spokesman that he was aware that Newsnight was investigating Savile. The spokesman told the Times: "Mark attended a party late last year where a journalist mentioned the fact that Newsnight had been investigating Savile. The journalist said words to the effect that 'You must be worried about the Newsnight investigation'. "This was the first that Mark had heard about the investigation. The journalist did not go into what Newsnight was investigating. Mark did not respond at the party but did mention the conversation to senior colleagues in BBC News and asked if there was a problem with the investigation. "He was told that Newsnight had begun an investigation into Savile but had decided to drop it for journalistic reasons. Mark assumed that this meant that the decision not to proceed had been taken by Peter Rippon. "He was not told anything about the allegations Newsnight had been looking at. The first time he became aware of the allegations that Savile had committed serious crimes and that some had taken place in the course of his employment at the BBC was when he heard the 'pre-publicity' for the ITV investigation [the documentary that aired allegations of child abuse by Savile]. This was after he had stepped down as director general." Thompson's spokesman told the Guardian there was "no contradiction" between the two positions: "Mark told the New York Times he was not briefed on the Newsnight investigation. He wasn't. As he made clear yesterday, he was only made aware of the allegations relating to Jimmy Savile when ITV published pre-broadcast publicity regarding their documentary in recent weeks." Asked about Thompson's statement to the London newspaper, where he said he had been told Newsnight was investigating Savile, the spokesman added: "He was not briefed or notified of the Newsnight investigation. He was told there was an investigation into Jimmy Savile by Newsnight at a party. But, as he makes clear, he was not briefed on what the investigation was about, the substance of the allegation, how far reporters had got, the editorial decision to drop it etc." The spokesman said Thompson stood by both statements, but his position appears to rest on a subtle, semantic difference between the definitions of being "made aware" and being "notified or briefed". The convulsions over which BBC executives knew what and when is in danger of overshadowing the initial story into the abuse conducted by Savile over his 40-year career as a radio DJ and TV host. George Entwistle, Thompson's successor as director general, gave a faltering performance before a committee of MPs on Tuesday, where he was accused of a "lack of curiosity" over the Newsnight investigation. The allegations were eventually aired earlier this month on rival network ITV. Thompson has said that he will return to London to face MPs if he is called upon. His position at the New York Times was put under significant strain this week when Sullivan, the public editor, asked whether he was the "right person for the job," given the importance attached to integrity at the paper. She suggested that the NYT should interrogate the story more vigorously. In a blogpost, she asked: "How likely is it that he knew nothing?" Questioning Thompson's suitability, Sullivan wrote: "How likely is it that the Times Company will continue with its plan to bring Mr Thompson on as chief executive? (It's worth noting that as public editor, I have no inside knowledge on such corporate matters.) His integrity and decision-making are bound to affect The Times and its journalism – profoundly. It's worth considering now whether he is the right person for the job, given this turn of events." The paper referred questions about Thomson's comments to his spokesman. The NYT's vice president of corporate communications, Eileen Murphy, said it would not comment on Sullivan's questioning of Thompson's suitability. "The public editor is an independent voice in the newsroom and she is doing her job. We do not make a habit of commenting on her columns," Murphy said. Asked about Thompson's suitability for the role, she said: "We're not commenting, given that he doesn't work here yet." An NYT newsroom source said people at the newspaper had been "completely blown away" by Sullivan's decision to query in public Thompson's suitability as incoming CEO. "Not just the newsroom, but the entire building is in shock. It's a really big deal," said the source, who asked not to be named. There was not a widespread feeling of concern over Thompson's appointment, they said. "To begin with, everybody thought he was the great hope, because he'd done great things at the BBC and [the NYT] had wanted him and they got him. The Savile story is so recent; it post-dates his appointment. But it is absolutely not the New York Times's modus operandi to back away."
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Apple unveils mini iPad tablet with prices starting at $329 (£269 in the UK) to compete with Amazon and Google's tablets
The iPad mini launch as it happened Apple made its play to dominate the fast-growing tablet market on Tuesday by unveiling an "iPad mini" - a new tablet half the size of its existing iPad - to compete with Google's Nexus 7 and Amazon's Kindle Fire, amid rocketing demand for the smaller products. But the price may prove a barrier for potential buyers considering it against its rivals: the iPad mini will start at $329 (£269 in the UK), against $159 for the cheapest Kindle Fire and $249 for the Nexus 7. Even so, Apple chief executive Tim Cook pointed to the momentum that Apple has built up in the tablet market, saying that two weeks ago the company had sold its 100 millionth iPad - "unprecedented for a new product in this category," he said. The first iPad went on sale in April 2010. "Others have tried to make tablets smaller than the iPad and they have failed miserably," said Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice-president of worldwide marketing, who introduced the iPad mini in San Jose, USA. The new iPad mini, which can be held in one hand, has a 7.9 inch (20cm) display, weighs in at 0.68 pounds (0.3kg) and is 7.2mm (0.3 inches) thin, a quarter thinner than the new fourth generation iPad which was launched at the same event. Apple has had around 70% of the entire tablet market up to now, but the launch in the summer of Google's 7in Nexus 7 tablet - estimated to have sold around a million in three months - and of the Kindle Fire, launched in the US in October 2011, has pointed to huge potential in the market. While PC sales have been stuttering and even shrinking by double-digit amounts in the US, those of tablets have rocketed since Apple introduced the iPad, followed by a number of rivals using Google's Android mobile software. Now Apple is trying to dominate the whole space as it did with the iPod in the digital music player market, where its top-end iPod was broadened to the iPod mini and nano. A research group is forecasting that sales of smaller tablets will double this year. IHS iSuppli expects about 34m smaller tablets – with screens of about 7 inches diagonally– will be sold worldwide in 2012, up from 17m last year. Jason Jenkins, editor of CNet UK, forecast "a bloodbath" in the market and said that the length of time that Phil Schiller, Apple's marketing chief, spent comparing the iPad mini to the Google Nexus 7 during his presentation - where he compared the app experience and screen size for browsing unfavourably with the new product - suggest Apple is "scared": "there is a real chance one of its rivals could take its dominant tablet market share away," Jenkins said. But Fred Huet, managing director of Greenwich Consulting, said that it showed that Apple was not content to let rivals get a larger share of the market: "Whilst mini in size, this device is set to throw one almighty punch in the direction of all competitors, who have for so long now had a torrid time competing against the 10-inch iPad. The iPad Mini is a clear warning shot to all competitors that the world's most valuable company is not willing to share any of its 70% market share in the tablet industry, at least not without a strong fight." Salman Chaudhry, mobile computing analyst at the UK-based research company Context, said sales of 7in tablets in the UK have soared from 10,000 between April and June to 220,000 from July to September - kicked off principally by the Nexus 7. "Market figures point to a big opportunity in this segment," said Chaudhry. "Our figures show that there is now massive demand for this form factor. A 7in iPad should worry most of the competition in the tablet space, but most of all, we expect it to take revenues away from Amazon, as an 'iPad mini' will make the device much more of a content consumption device than its siblings."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Social network posts third-quarter loss of $59m, but revenues rise to $1.09bn as Mark Zuckerberg touts mobile successes Facebook has a billion users, the social media giant announced on Tuesday as it unveiled its latest quarterly results and modestly beat analysts' expectations. The company hit a historic 1bn visitors early this month, climbing 26% from a year ago. The number of daily active users rose 28% to 584 million. The number of mobile monthly active users rose 61% to 604 million. Facebook posted a loss of $59m in the third quarter as costs and expenses rose 64% to $885m, but its advertising business posted a 36% rise in revenues to $1.09bn, accounting for the majority of the firm's $1.26bn revenues. Fourteen percent of ad revenues, about $150m, came from mobile, an area where the company and analysts have expressed concerns about making money. "Our opportunity on mobile is the most misunderstood aspect of Facebook today," said Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's co-founder. He said mobile would be "fundamentally good" for Facebook. The company's shares had closed the day at $19.50, close to half the price they sold for at Facebook's initial public offering in May. But they soared in after-hours trading, at one point rising 20%. Zuckerberg also defended the $1bn purchase of Instagram, the photo-sharing app company, made shortly before Facebook's controversial IPO. Zuckerberg said the number of Instagram users had grown to 100 million from 27 million since the purchase. He said that people spend more time on Instagram than on Twitter, according to Comscore's analysis. Zuckerberg also addressed the problems at Zynga, the online gaming firm responsible for games including Words With Friends and Draw Something. Zynga's payments to Facebook dropped 20%. "Gaming on Facebook isn't doing as well as I'd like," Zuckerberg said. Zynga's shares have collapsed over 76% since its IPO in December 2011. In his second presentation to analysts, Zuckerberg spent much of his time trying to "dispel the myth" that the firm could not make money on ads. He said Facebook was just at the beginning of monetizing mobile, the fastest growing way that people access the service. Zuckerberg said 70% of mobile users visit Facebook every day and that he expected advertising revenues to be better on mobile as the ads will be more integrated into the service. Facebook has suffered after its much-hyped IPO fell spectacularly flat. The company was briefly valued at $100bn on its first day of trading but is now valued at $41bn. After a sharp selloff that has triggered lawsuits from early investors, the company's shares have hovered at around $20 for weeks. Even news that the firm now has over a billion users worldwide has failed to cheer the stock price as analysts cooled on Facebook's ability to make money.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Chairman speaks out amid criticism of director general George Entwistle's testimony before MPs The BBC's chairman, Lord Patten, has launched a spirited defence of the corporation's independence as ministers criticised an uncertain performance by director general George Entwistle in front of MPs, and police prepared to make their first arrests in the growing scandal over the late TV and radio star Jimmy Savile. Maria Miller, the culture secretary, spoke to Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, after watching what was felt to be a less than reassuring performance from Entwistle before the culture, media and sport select committee. She urged him to become more personally involved because "very real concerns are being raised about public trust and confidence in the BBC". Entwistle was repeatedly unable to give precise figures about the number of allegations of assault, harassment or inappropriate conduct that had been reported to the BBC – and his two-hour testimony prompted further questions over the involvement of the BBC's head of news in Newsnight's aborted investigation into Savile last year. But with the political temperature rising as the Savile crisis moves into its fourth week, Patten wrote back to warn Miller off criticising Entwistle. "I know that you will not want to give any impression that you are questioning the independence of the BBC," the peer said. He added that his trust would keep her in touch with developments as two inquiries into the Savile scandal completed their work over the coming months. Meanwhile, preparations for the first arrests are well under way as the scandal moves into a new phase. The police inquiry is understood to be examining individuals from different institutions as a result of claims made by alleged victims of sexual abuse who have come forward in the last fortnight. It is not clear, at this stage, if any of those likely to be arrested have worked for the BBC, but it is understood some suspects at the centre of the criminal investigation did have associations with Savile at the peak of his reign as a BBC celebrity. However, officers have not established that a paedophile ring existed at any particular institution despite allegations from a lawyer representing victims on the Panorama programme on Monday night. When Entwistle was pressed by Philip Davies MP to state "how many people employed by the BBC have had sexual harassment allegations made against them" he struggled to answer. Initially, he said that there were "between five and 10 serious allegations over the whole period in question" but later he refined that to between eight and 10. A few hours after the meeting, the BBC refined its answer again, saying that there were "nine new allegations of harassment, assault or inappropriate conduct" made against existing staff, rather than over the whole period covered by allegations about Savile. The corporation could not provide a figure as to how many allegations had been made against former stars or employees, and Entwistle told MPs: "What I haven't done is ask the statistical question." He also told MPs that Helen Boaden, the BBC's head of news, had been made aware of the aborted Newsnight investigation into Savile last November and told Peter Rippon, the editor of the BBC2 programme, that just because Savile had recently died it "didn't mean skimping on the usual journalistic standards". Journalists at Newsnight at the time said they believed this conversation happened on 28 or 29 November last year – just before Rippon suddenly cooled on the idea of the investigation into Savile that they had been working on in the aftermath of his death – and that it amounted to an invitation to the Newsnight editor to drop the investigation. A spokesman for Boaden confirmed she had made that remark on or around those dates, but otherwise said that the circumstances around the axing of the film would be examined in the review led by the former head of Sky News Nick Pollard. In his evidence, Entwistle chose to heavily criticise Rippon – a man he had defended earlier in the crisis – saying he had made an error in completely aborting the investigation on 1 December of last year. "I am firmly of the view that the investigation should have been allowed to continue," the director general said of the film. If it had aired in early December, the film would have been the first time the allegations about Savile's sexual abuse of teenage girls would have emerged. The BBC chief said he was "very disappointed indeed" that the account Rippon had given of the reasons why he dropped the investigation had "turned out to be as inaccurate as it was". Rippon agreed to step aside on full pay on Monday after his account of the Newsnight affair had to be corrected three times. Rippon's lawyers, Davis Price, said they had no comment on Entwistle's evidence. Entwistle said that he was not involved in the BBC discussions about the Savile film, but said he was warned at a "busy lunch" by Boaden on 2 December that Newsnight was investigating Savile and possible implications for the schedules because Christmas tributes to the late presenter were planned. Entwistle, then the director of vision, responsible for the BBC's television channels, said he inquired no further, reflecting "a determination not to show an undue interest" in the matter because Newsnight was not part of his division of the organisation. This phase of his evidence prompted several critical remarks from the MPs present. A committee member, the Conservative MP Damian Collins, said: "You sound a bit like James Murdoch."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | • Usada reacts angrily to UCI criticism of its Armstrong findings
• 'They are trying to divert attention from their own failures' The chief executive of the US Anti-Doping Agency, Travis Tygart, has responded angrily to claims made in a document released by the UCI on Monday, saying that cycling's governing body are "simply diverting attention away from their own failures". On Monday, the UCI president, Pat McQuaid, convened a press conference to deliver the UCI's verdict on the Usada report, published two weeks ago, which had revealed the extent of the doping scheme that enabled Lance Armstrong to win seven consecutive Tours de France. The report's publication followed Armstrong's decision not to contest Usada's case against him in an arbitration hearing – even though that decision meant he would be stripped of all his titles. In Geneva, McQuaid said the UCI recognised the Usada ruling and that Lance Armstrong now "had no place in cycling". But in a document published later the same day on the UCI's website, and personally signed by McQuaid, he delivered a different message. The UCI's "Decision" document accepts Usada's sanction against Armstrong, but calls its evidence and methods into question, and raises grounds for a possible appeal – either by Armstrong himself, or by the World Anti-Doping Agency – against the report's conclusions. After first welcoming the UCI's announcement on Monday, Usada's Tygart reacted indignantly on Tuesday, once he had reviewed McQuaid's critique. "The truth is Lance Armstrong, on their watch, pulled off the greatest heist sport has ever seen," said Tygart. "Instead of attempting to explain or justify their inadequacies, the UCI should acknowledge their responsibility and failures and find ways to make it right." During the press conference McQuaid had to field uncomfortable questions over the UCI's acceptance of $125,000 in donations from Armstrong. In the four-page "Decision" document, however, McQuaid refers to the Usada report's "overstated language", "incorrect and incomplete statements", and questions whether Usada had a sufficient "degree of detachment" to make a disciplinary judgment. "The UCI does not point to any specifics in making this ridiculous claim," responded Tygart, via email from Usada's Colorado headquarters, after reviewing the document. "They simply are trying to divert attention away from their own failures in this whole sad saga, and those that love the sport of cycling and clean sport should not allow that to happen. "Our report was straightforward and produced the natural and logical conclusion based on a simple review of the evidence," he continued. "Maybe they do not like the outcome but it is the simple sad truth, nothing more and nothing less and their effort to undercut is obviously a transparent attempt to continue to run from the truth." In the document, McQuaid also challenged the jurisdiction of Usada in stripping Armstrong of his titles under the Wada Anti-Doping Code and publishing its report after Armstrong waived his right to a court of arbitration for sport (Cas) hearing. McQuaid suggested that Armstrong "could have contested not only the allegations that Usada made against him but also the jurisdiction of Usada". According to McQuaid, the UCI should have been given Usada's case file for the UCI to decide on what action to pursue. "We set forth our position on why they were conflicted in this case on many different grounds," said Tygart, "They accepted money from him [Armstrong], they accused us of a witch-hunt (without seeing any evidence), they sued the chief whistleblower, they discouraged witnesses from participating." In the UCI "Decision", McQuaid claimed that if his body had had prior sight of Usada's evidence, it would have concluded that Armstrong "had a case to answer" and would have advised Armstrong's national governing body, USA Cycling, to institute proceedings. Tygart has little confidence that an investigation led and controlled by the UCI would have produced the same result. "All in all, given what was at stake for the sport," said Tygart, "I was very doubtful this day would ever come". Perhaps the most serious of McQuaid's claims is that Usada deprived Armstrong of the benefit of an eight-year statute of limitations under Wada's Code. Theoretically, this would rule out of court all Usada's evidence of doping violations prior to 2004, the year of Armstrong's penultimate Tour de France victory. McQuaid goes on to note that this statute of limitations could have formed the basis for a partial defence if Armstrong had accepted a Cas hearing on his case. The UCI president adds that while the UCI itself would not appeal to Cas on the basis of this claimed infringement of the statute, Wada should, or could, in his view, make such an appeal for the sake of enforcing compliance. In short, the UCI advises Wada that it has a responsibility to appeal against Usada's ruling against Armstrong's doping operation. "Armstrong denied himself the benefit of any statute because he lied under oath and many other forums, swearing that he did not dope, in addition to bullying witnesses into silence," Tygart responded. "If he had not done this, he might have benefited from the statute of limitation. To raise this now, only further shows their reluctance to do the right thing for the sport going forward." Tygart added that he would have been happy to have seen the case go to Cas, rather than be settled by Armstrong's waiving of his right. "We welcomed a Cas proceeding for all the evidence to be presented under oath and in public for the world to see, and we were confident the world would know the truth, as it does today." In a section in the "Decision" commenting on Usada's evidence, McQuaid casts several aspersions. Implying duress, he notes that witness statements "have been under penalty of perjury" and "have not been submitted to cross-examination". "Even if, purely as an assumption," noted McQuaid, "some statements made against Mr Armstrong would be incorrect, vague or confusing, the UCI does not have the elements to show that this would be the case." "[This is] another example of the UCI attempting to escape responsibility for their failures and it is quite sad they would continue to resort to such underhanded tactics at this time," said Tygart. "This is absolutely fiction, made up by them to justify their ineptness at failing to prevent this 'great heist' in their sport." McQuaid closed the UCI document with the proviso that the UCI's recognition of the Usada ruling is conditional "on whether Mr Armstrong or Wada will appeal Usada's decision to Cas". Given the history of tension between the UCI and Wada – McQuaid and his predecessor Hein Verbruggen even sued Wada's former head, Dick Pound, over his criticism of their anti-doping efforts – an appeal by Wada seems very unlikely. Despite what might be seen as the encouragement offered by McQuaid to Armstrong in the UCI document, Tygart is not losing any sleep over any move by Armstrong himself. "Armstrong has waived his right to any appeal," he said. "He does not have any right to appeal at this time.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Prosecutors dispute whistleblower status but agree to drop charges filed under first world war-era Espionage Act A former CIA officer pleaded guilty Tuesday to leaking the identity of one of the agency's covert operatives to a reporter. As part of a plea deal, prosecutors dropped charges against John Kiriakou, 48, that had been filed under the first world war-era Espionage Act. They also dropped a count of making false statements. Kiriakou's supporters argue that he is a whistleblower on issues including torture and the CIA's rendition program. All sides agreed to a prison term of two years. US district judge Leonie Brinkema noted that the term was identical to that which was imposed on Scooter Libby, the chief of staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney, in 2007. Libby was convicted in a case in which he was accused of leaking information that compromised the covert identity of the CIA operative Valerie Plame, though Libby's sentence was commuted by then-president George W Bush. Kiriakou, who wrote a book detailing his CIA career, initially tried to argue that he was a victim of vindictive prosecution by government officials who believed he had portrayed the CIA negatively. The judge rejected those arguments. Kiriakou was a CIA veteran who played a role in the agency's capture of the al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded by government interrogators and eventually revealed information that led to the arrest of the "dirty bomb" plotter Jose Padilla and exposed Khalid Sheikh Mohamed as the mastermind of the 9/11 terror attacks. Accounts conflict over whether the waterboarding was helpful in getting intelligence from Zubaydah. Kiriakou, who did not participate in the waterboarding, expressed ambivalence in news media interviews about the practice but ultimately declared that it was torture. After Tuesday's hearing, one of Kiriakou's lawyers, Jesselyn Radack, an expert on whistleblower issues with the Government Accountability Project, said it was an outrage that Kiriakou would serve jail time. She said she was glad, though, that the charges under the Espionage Act had been dropped. Radack said Kiriakou had been motivated to take the plea by the fact that he has five children and wanted to ensure he would be out of prison in time to see them grow up. Radack said Kiriakou deserved to be considered a whistleblower because the name he revealed to a journalist was an individual involved in the CIA's rendition program, which Radack said engaged in torture. She also said Kiriakou became a strong voice against waterboarding and other torture tactics. Prosecutors dispute the notion that Kiriakou was any kind of whistleblower. In court papers, they said the investigation of Kiriakou began in 2009 when authorities became alarmed after discovering that detainees at Guantanamo Bay possessed photographs of CIA and FBI personnel who had interrogated them. The investigation eventually led back to Kiriakou, according to a government affidavit. The papers indicated that prosecutors believed Kiriakou had leaked the name of a CIA covert operative to a journalist, who disclosed it to an investigator working for the lawyer of a Guantanamo detainee. Neil MacBride, US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said: "The government has a vital interest in protecting the identities of those involved in covert operations. Leaks of highly sensitive, closely held and classified information compromise national security and can put individual lives in danger." The CIA director, David Petraeus, sent a memo to agency employees noting Kiriakou's conviction, saying: "It marks an important victory for our agency, for our intelligence community, and for our country. Oaths do matter, and there are indeed consequences for those who believe they are above the laws that protect our fellow officers and enable American intelligence agencies to operate with the requisite degree of secrecy." Kiriakou had planned to subpoena three journalists connected to the case. Those journalists had filed motions to quash the subpoenas, but that issue is now moot. Kiriakou will be formally sentenced in January.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Records reveal litany of complaints against NECC as far back as 1999, raising questions of oversight of compounding industry The company linked to the deadly meningitis outbreak had repeatedly escaped harsh sanctions from health regulators in the years leading up to the scandal, raising fresh questions about oversight of the compounding pharmacy sector. Problems at the New England Compounding Center in Framingham, Massachusetts stretched as far back as 1999, according to state records released amid a wave of legal action from patients who received contaminated or potentially contaminated steroid injections made by NECC. One lawyer told the Guardian that information in the documents could expand the scope of the lawsuits against the company to include punitive damages. On Tuesday the US Centers for Disease Control updated the number of cases to 304, including one new case in Georgia, bringing the number of states affected to 17. No new deaths were reported. Regulators stopped short of imposing the harshest sanctions available to them, such as putting the firm on a three-year probationary period and issuing a formal reprimand, even as the list of complaints continued to grow, the documents show. Released under a freedom of information request and published on the Massachusetts department of health website, the documents show a litany of complaints against the company, ranging from allegations of an NECC official handing out blank prescriptions in 1999, to inadequate documentation and inadequate process controls in 2006. The pharmacy board of the public health department in Massachusetts initially proposed sanctioning NECC in 2004 with three years of probation and a public reprimand, amid allegations that it violated accepted standards for compounding methylprednisolone acetate, the steroid linked to the current fungal meningitis outbreak. But two years later, the board agreed to a non-disciplinary settlement. It also agreed not to report the agreement to the National Association of State Boards of Pharmacy or other outside agencies. NECC's lawyer had pleaded with the board not to issue a public reprimand because it could put the company out of business, according to Reuters. The documents reveal that, in 2006, an outside evaluation firm, Pharmacy Support Inc, was sent to NECC. In a letter to NECC, it concluded: "Although your facility has seen significant upgrades in facility design for the sterile compounding operation, there were numerous significant gaps identified during the assessment." A follow-up letter was sent to Barry Cadden, NECC's chief pharmacist, in April 2006, by George Cayer, then president of the state pharmacy board charged with regulating the compounding industry, which praised the company's progress in responding to the inspection. The company was placed on probation for one year, but the probation was stayed as part of a consent agreement, and no fines or other punitive action were ordered. However, according to the Associated Press, a letter from the congressional committee indicates that the company received a warning letter from the FDA in December 2006. Among the issues cited was NECC's manipulation of a sterile injectable product that led the FDA to be "especially concerned about potential microbial contamination." A congressional committee, which sought 10 years of documents relating to the NECC on Monday, said the company's actions "call into question whether the NECC was operating as a traditional compounding pharmacy or on a commercial scale as a drug manufacturer." Fred Pritzker, an attorney representing 40 patients across several states who have been affected by the outbreak, said that the documents could expand the scope of the lawsuits against NECC. He has filed one lawsuit already, but expects those lawsuits to be consolidated into one multi-district litigation action to be dealt with in one court. "This is not an isolated case," said Pritzker. "This is a pattern practice of abuse." He said: "It could expand the scope of the lawsuits to include punitive damages. The real problem is that the company is not going to have enough assets to cover all those affected. It is a very complicated mess, and it is usually the victims, the families of people who have been killed, or people who have suffered horrible injury who are left out." NECC is widely expected to file for bankruptcy, which would lead to all legal action against it to be halted. The complaints against NECC dated back from 1999 and appeared to follow the company as it expanded from the small family business owned by Cadden and his brother-in-law, Gregory Conigliaro, into the company that, in 2012, sold products in bulk to hospitals and clinics across 50 states. Several investigations are already underway into NECC, which appears to have broken at least one state law, according to state authorities earlier this month, by providing the steroid to patients without prescription. Compounding pharmacies such as NECC are only allowed to produce drugs based on a specific prescription written by a physician for an individual patient and are not generally allowed to solicit business or to promote products that have not been requested by physicians. The documents show that, in 2004, pharmacists in Iowa and Wisconsin complained to the board that NECC and Cadden were soliciting out-of-state prescriptions for office use and using a form unapproved by the Massachusetts department of public health. The same year, the board also issued another advisory letter, noting that it had received a complaint from a "concerned Texas pharmacist about products being solicited by Barry Cadden." An investigation revealed that NECC was offering an eye treatment and improperly included promotional material and terminology in the advertisements. A complaint in 1999, a year after the pharmacy became operational, which was investigated by the complaints committee, also concerned prescriptions. The "New England Compounding Center providing a practitioner with prescription blanks" in "violation of board regulations," the documents said. On Monday, a congressional committee sought a decade's worth of records from the company. In a letter sent to a lawyer for NECC, the House committee on energy and commerce noted that as far back as 2002 and 2003 officials from the food and drug administration and the state conducted joint probes of the company after receiving a report about a steroid shot. Those probes preceded a 2004 joint investigation of the centre by FDA and the Massachusetts board of registration in pharmacy. In a statement on Monday, NECC said: "New England Compounding Center worked cooperatively with the Massachusetts board of registration in pharmacy to resolve to the board's satisfaction any issues brought to the company's attention."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Charles Arthur: Full coverage as Apple reveals the price, size and other details of the iPad Mini
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Apple unveils mini iPad tablet with prices starting at $329 to compete with Amazon's Kindle and Google's Android tablets
Liveblog: follow the iPad mini launch event here Apple has unveiled a mini version of its iPad as part of its move to muscle in on the market in smaller, cheaper tablets – one dominated for now by Amazon and Google. The new iPad mini, which can be held in one hand, has a 7.9 inch (20cm) display, weighs in at 0.68 pounds (0.3kg) and is 7.2mm (0.3 inches) thin, a quarter thinner than the new fourth generation iPad which was launched at the same event. Prices in the US for the iPad mini start at $329 (£206.40) for the 16GB version, a figure likely to disappoint many who had hoped it would come in at slightly less, with the cost rising to $459 (£287.97) for the 4G version . "Others have tried to make tablets smaller than the iPad and they have failed miserably," said Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice-president of worldwide marketing, who introduced the iPad mini in San Jose, USA. The tablet, which has the same resolution as the iPad 2, runs on an Apple A5 chip and has features including a Facetime HD camera, a five megapixel camera capable of taking pictures and video. Its battery life is 10 hours. Schiller said: "The technology inside is equal to, if not better to, the iPad 2 in every way." The iPad mini is the first to be added to Apple's portfolio of compact devices under Tim Cook, who took over as chief executive from co-founder Steve Jobs just before his death in October 2011. The move is a crucial part of Apple's plan to beat back the charge on to its home turf of consumer electronics hardware by Amazon and Google, both of which have already launched popular smaller tablet devices. Wall Street analysts have said for months that Apple was planning a less expensive version of the iPad to take on cheaper competing devices, a move they say might hurt its margins but prevent its rivals from dominating an increasingly important segment. The chief rival is Amazon, which proved that a 7-inch tablet costing about $200 has consumer appeal. The Kindle Fire, released last year, was one of the hottest-selling festive gadgets. It pressured Amazon's margins but gave it potentially millions of new high-spending customers. A research group is forecasting that sales of smaller tablets will double this year.IHS iSuppli expects about 34m smaller tablets – with screens of about 7 inches diagonally– will be sold worldwide in 2012, up from 17m last year. Cook said on Tuesday that Apple had sold its 100 millionth iPad two weeks ago. "This is unprecedented for a new product in a new category," he said. "We sold more iPads in the June quarter than any PC manufacturer sold in its entire PC line. It seems like every day there's another tablet shipping but when you look at the ones being used it tells a different story.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Federal court rules Indiana cannot cut funding for Planned Parenthood just because the organization provides abortions Indiana cannot cut off funding for Planned Parenthood just because the organization provides abortions, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld the core portion of a lower court order that said Indiana could not enforce a state law that barred abortion providers from collecting Medicaid funds for any medical services. Indiana's Republican governor, Mitch Daniels, signed a law in May 2011 that made Indiana the first state to deny the organization Medicaid funds for general health services, including cancer screenings. In June 2011, US district judge Tanya Walton Pratt issued an order blocking parts of the law after Planned Parenthood challenged it. But the state appealed. The appeals court upheld the part of Pratt's order that said Indiana did not have authority to exclude a medical provider that qualifies for Medicaid. It said the law violated patients' right to obtain medical care from the provider of their choice. However, the panel of three judges said Pratt needed to modify other portions of the preliminary injunction.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | President to cut negative campaign style and set out agenda for second term in 20-page leaflet handed out in swing states Barack Obama attempted to seize back the political initiative on Tuesday by abruptly switching to a new, positive strategy for the final stretch of the White House campaign after dominating the third and final presidential debate. After months of criticism for campaigning negatively – with a relentless and costly stream of ads since early summer aimed at undermining Mitt Romney's character – the Obama campaign is to emphasise what the president would do with another four years in office. Democrats and undecided voters have been pleading with him for months to set out in detail his second-term agenda – something on which he has been extremely vague so far. The campaign is printing 3.5m copies of a 20-page leaflet to be distributed in the battlefield states setting out his proposed agenda for economic recovery, domestic-based energy, education, tax, healthcare and pensions. Obama was backing it up with a minute-long advert in nine battlefield states from Wednesday. Although it is an important strategic switch, there is little new in the leaflet, more a repackaging of vague plans set out by Obama over the last few months. In spite of the shift towards a more positive strategy, the Obama campaign will not completely abandon its attacks on Romney's character. With the debates behind them, Obama and Romney hit the campaign trail Tuesday, beginning a series of gruelling tours of the battlefield states. Obama spoke at a rally in Florida before heading to Ohio, while Romney held events in Nevada and Colorado. The consensus in the US media was that Obama had dominated the 90-minute debate on foreign policy in Boca Raton, Florida, but had not done enough to change the course of the election. Although Obama had won last night and last week, these do not compensate for the debate that really mattered, the first one in Denver that allowed Romney back into the race. A CBS instant poll after the Boca Raton debate awarded it to Obama, putting him on 53% to Romney's 23%. Obama's main adviser, David Axelrod, in a conference call with reporters, described the debate as "a great springboard for the last two weeks". Contrary to rumours that the campaign is abandoning North Carolina and Florida as already lost, Axelrod insisted this is untrue and it was not pulling out of these states. "We'll know who's bluffing and who isn't in two weeks," Axelrod said. As the two campaigns set out on the final two-week slog, the Romney team seemed to be the jauntier of the two, hoping that the momentum that began in Denver will carry them through to November 6. Stuart Stevens, one of Romney's main advisers, said: "We came in [to the Monday debate] in a strong position and left in an even stronger one." He identified Ohio as a pivotal battlefield state. "He will be in Ohio a lot," Stevens said. The Romney campaign is staying negative, issuing an ad picking up on a line from the debate in which Romney accused Obama of having gone early in his presidency on an 'apology tour' of the Middle East. One of the Republican Super Pacs, Restore Our Future, began a $17.7m ad blitz for Romney. In the debate, Obama repeatedly portrayed Romney as "all over the map" on foreign policy. He described his opponent twice as "wrong and reckless". The president worked through a list of issues on which he said Romney had been wrong, from support for the 2003 Iraq invasion through to opposing setting a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. On issue after issue, from Iranian sanctions to withdrawal from Afghanistan, there was little difference between Romney's position and that of the administration, but Romney insisted he would have projected American strength more effectively. Continuing his shift into a more moderate, centrist position, he insisted to war-weary Americans that, in spite of past bellicose statements, he was not looking to engage in another war. One of the most telling moments came when Obama lectured Romney on military developments as if he was a child. Responding to a pledge by Romney to increase military spending and a complaint that the navy had fewer ships, Obama resorted to heavy sarcasm. "You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1917. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater – nuclear submarines," Obama said. But Romney did not crumple, and recovered in the second half of the debate, in particular when he managed to drag the subject on to domestic economic concerns. On the Middle East, Romney said an attack on Iran would be a last resort and that he was against direct US military involvement in Syria. He sought to neutralise the advantage Obama enjoys thanks to the killing of Osama bin Laden by insisting that his own policy was about more than "going after the bad guys". "We can't just kill our way out of this mess," Romney said.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | President attempts to move away from negative campaign style and sets out agenda for second term in 20-page leaflet handed out in swing states Barack Obama attempted to seize back the political initiative on Tuesday by abruptly switching to a new, positive strategy for the final stretch of the White House campaign after dominating the third and final presidential debate. After months of criticism for campaigning negatively – with a relentless and costly stream of ads since early summer aimed at undermining Mitt Romney's character – the Obama campaign is to emphasise what the president would do with another four years in office. Democrats and undecided voters have been pleading with him for months to set out in detail his second-term agenda – something on which he has been extremely vague so far. The campaign is printing 3.5m copies of a 20-page leaflet to be distributed in the battlefield states setting out his proposed agenda for economic recovery, domestic-based energy, education, tax, healthcare and pensions. Obama was backing it up with a minute-long advert in nine battlefield states from Wednesday. Although it is an important strategic switch, there is little new in the leaflet, more a repackaging of vague plans set out by Obama over the last few months. In spite of the shift towards a more positive strategy, the Obama campaign will not completely abandon its attacks on Romney's character. With the debates behind them, Obama and Romney hit the campaign trail Tuesday, beginning a series of gruelling tours of the battlefield states. Obama spoke at a rally in Florida before heading to Ohio, while Romney held events in Nevada and Colorado. The consensus in the US media was that Obama had dominated the 90-minute debate on foreign policy in Boca Raton, Florida, but had not done enough to change the course of the election. Although Obama had won last night and last week, these do not compensate for the debate that really mattered, the first one in Denver that allowed Romney back into the race. A CBS instant poll after the Boca Raton debate awarded it to Obama, putting him on 53% to Romney's 23%. Obama's main adviser, David Axelrod, in a conference call with reporters, described the debate as "a great springboard for the last two weeks". Contrary to rumours that the campaign is abandoning North Carolina and Florida as already lost, Axelrod insisted this is untrue and it was not pulling out of these states. "We'll know who's bluffing and who isn't in two weeks," Axelrod said. As the two campaigns set out on the final two-week slog, the Romney team seemed to be the jauntier of the two, hoping that the momentum that began in Denver will carry them through to November 6. Stuart Stevens, one of Romney's main advisers, said: "We came in [to the Monday debate] in a strong position and left in an even stronger one." He identified Ohio as a pivotal battlefield state. "He will be in Ohio a lot," Stevens said. The Romney campaign is staying negative, issuing an ad picking up on a line from the debate in which Romney accused Obama of having gone early in his presidency on an 'apology tour' of the Middle East. One of the Republican Super Pacs, Restore Our Future, began a $17.7m ad blitz for Romney. In the debate, Obama repeatedly portrayed Romney as "all over the map" on foreign policy. He described his opponent twice as "wrong and reckless". The president worked through a list of issues on which he said Romney had been wrong, from support for the 2003 Iraq invasion through to opposing setting a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. On issue after issue, from Iranian sanctions to withdrawal from Afghanistan, there was little difference between Romney's position and that of the administration, but Romney insisted he would have projected American strength more effectively. Continuing his shift into a more moderate, centrist position, he insisted to war-weary Americans that, in spite of past bellicose statements, he was not looking to engage in another war. One of the most telling moments came when Obama lectured Romney on military developments as if he was a child. Responding to a pledge by Romney to increase military spending and a complaint that the navy had fewer ships, Obama resorted to heavy sarcasm. "You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1917. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater – nuclear submarines," Obama said. But Romney did not crumple, and recovered in the second half of the debate, in particular when he managed to drag the subject on to domestic economic concerns. On the Middle East, Romney said an attack on Iran would be a last resort and that he was against direct US military involvement in Syria. He sought to neutralise the advantage Obama enjoys thanks to the killing of Osama bin Laden by insisting that his own policy was about more than "going after the bad guys". "We can't just kill our way out of this mess," Romney said.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Krawitz was denied treatments after the VA learned of his prescription but advocates see promise in a recent hearing A disabled veteran has told an appeals court that the department of veteran affairs policy on medical marijuana has caused him pain and significant economic harm, in a development campaigners say is a positive step in the battle to push for the drug's reclassification. Michael Krawitz, one of five plaintiffs involved in a legal case before the court of appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, told the Guardian that the VA denied him pain treatment after they discovered he had been prescribed medical marijuana while abroad. He told the court in an affidavit that the withdrawal of care by the department, which has rated him 100% permanently disabled and thus eligible for all medical treatment under its auspices, has meant he now has to travel 130 miles from his home to see a doctor for pain relief. Krawitz, 49, who is the executive director of Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access, said: "The bottom line is its unethical to take away someone's pain treatment. This conflicts with standards of medical care." Krawitz sustained his injuries in a car accident while serving in the US air force, which has left him suffering debilitating pain. The case, the result of a long-standing battle by medical marijuana advocates to reclassify the drug, is the first time in 20 years that scientific evidence regarding the therapeutic benefits of cannabis will be heard by a federal court. This current case "looks more promising" than previous efforts, because of the court's focus on Krawitz and the request for more details, according to the ASA. Joe Elford, the chief counsel with ASA, said: "It clearly demonstrated that the court is taking this case very seriously." "This is something that demonstrates real harm to a real individual and that individual is Michael Krawitz. "He is 100% disabled and supposed to get all his medical treatment from the VA. But because of the VA's policy on medical marijuana, which is clearly motivated by the schedule 1 status, that cannot happen." After an initial oral hearing last week, the court ordered Americans for Safe Access, a advocacy group for medical marijuana use and research to file a brief in order to "clarify and amplify the assertions made [by] Michael Krawitz regarding his individual standing", and to "more fully explain precisely the nature of the injury that gives him standing". ASA said they hope that if they can demonstrate that Krawitz was harmed by a federal policy that says medical marijuana has no medical value, they may also get the court to rule on the merit of the case. In that case, it would decide whether the scientific evidence is enough to reclassify the drug from its current status as a schedule 1 substance – as a dangerous drug on a par with heroin – to that of a safe drug that can be used in medicine. The issue of "standing", of which the court sought more details, is a legal concept that restricts the right to sue to those who are directly harmed by what they are fighting and can get relief from a legal ruling. No plaintiffs were involved in the last appeal of the Drug Enforcement Agency's classification of the drug, and it was thrown out of court over the issue of standing. There are veterans out there who are sufferingKrawitz had been receiving opiate-based pain relief from the VA until they discovered a prescription for medical marijuana he had received while abroad. They asked him to take a drug test and when he refused, they stopped his treatment. "It said right there in the contract that if they find illegal drugs in your system they they will not give you any pain treatment," he said. "I found that offensive. I've been getting this pain treatment for years." In an affidavit to the court, filed on Monday night which the Guardian has seen in draft form, Krawitz said he now has to travel to see a doctor 130 miles from his home in order to get pain treatment. The VA will not pay for this treatment, he said. The affidavit details how his use of cannabis has allowed him to reduce his use of opiate-based drug oxycodone and has lessened the "deleterious side-effects" he had experienced. He now divides his time between Oregon, the only state that allows non-residents to use medical marijuana, and his family's home state Virginia, where medical marijuana is illegal. His needs are now met by three different physicians, with his medical records split accordingly, he said. Under the department's rules, veterans can be denied pain medication if they are found to be using illegal drugs. In 2010, the policy changed, to formally allow patients living in states where medical marijuana is legal to use it. VA doctors, however, are not allowed to prescribe it or recommend its use. Krawitz said he has come across other veterans who, as a result of the VA's policy, or confusion over it, have been denied pain treatment. "In the VA, it's really a big problem. There are veterans out there who are suffering."
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, PASOK leader Evangelos Kouvelis and Democratic Left's Fotis Kouvelis are holding talks in an attempt to finalise Greece's €13.5bn austerity programme
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, PASOK leader Evangelos Kouvelis and Democratic Left's Fotis Kouvelis are holding talks in an attempt to finalise Greece's €13.5bn austerity programme
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Robust action by international navies and hiring of armed security guards drive piracy to three-year low Somali piracy has fallen to a three-year low because of co-ordinated action by international navies and the enlistment of armed security guards by shipping companies, according to a maritime watchdog. Seventy attacks were reported by ships in the first nine months of this year, compared with 199 incidents in the first nine months of 2011, the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) said. From July to September only one ship reported an attempted attack by Somali pirates, as opposed to 36 incidents in the same three months last year. Pottengal Mukundan, director of the IMB, said: "We welcome the successful robust targeting of pirate action groups by international navies in the high-risk waters off Somalia, ensuring these criminals are removed before they can threaten ships. "It's good news that hijackings are down, but there can be no room for complacency: these waters are still extremely high-risk and the naval presence must be maintained." International navies have stepped up pre-emptive action against pirates, including strikes on their bases on the Somali coast. Shipping firms have also bolstered their defences with armed guards, razor wire, water cannon and safe rooms. The IMB says no vessel with armed guards has ever been hijacked. A recent report by the Associated Press from Hobyo on central Somalia's Indian Ocean coastline painted a vivid picture of a criminal industry in decline. "The empty whiskey bottles and overturned, sand-filled skiffs that litter this once-bustling shoreline are signs that the heyday of Somali piracy may be over," it noted. "Most of the prostitutes are gone, the luxury cars repossessed. Pirates talk more about catching lobsters than seizing cargo ships." AP interviewed Abdirizaq Saleh, a pirate who had fallen on hard times, having "once had bodyguards and maids and the attention of beautiful women. When ransoms came in, a party was thrown, with blaring music, bottles of wine, the stimulant called khat and women for every man. Now Saleh is hiding from creditors in a dirty room filled with the dust-covered TVs and high-end clothes he acquired when flush." Last year Somali piracy in the busy shipping lanes of the Gulf of Aden and the north-western Indian Ocean netted $160m (£100m), and cost the world economy some $7bn (£4.39bn), figures from the American One Earth Future foundation show. Timo Lange, a spokesman for the European Union Naval Force Somalia (EU Navfor), a mission to protect humanitarian shipping, attributed the decline in attacks to a number of factors including monsoon season. He said the efforts of counterpiracy forces – including EU Navfor, Nato, Russia and China – had contributed and there was better co-operation between the forces. "Our operations are more and more intelligence-led," he said. "We react to events and we can get a report from a merchant vessel and close in on that region and actively look for those pirates." There are also signs that Somalis are resenting the pirates and placing their hopes in a new central government. "The communities are getting fed up with the pirates, and expel them from their communities so they have to look for other places to hide," he said. But he added that, without substantial change in Somalia, "the danger of piracy is always there". The decline comes as a new president and parliament attempt to bring stability to Somalia for the first time in 20 years. Rory Lamrock, an intelligence analyst with the security firm AKE, said piracy was a less attractive enterprise for gangs but this depended on security being maintained. "The gains are all reversible, because the main conditions on the land, such as poverty, insecurity, the distribution of firearms and a lack of institutional development, remain largely unchanged," he told Reuters. "If security measures are rescinded it would be very easy for pirate syndicates to resume their activity to similar levels of recent years." His sentiment was echoed within Somalia by the Ifiso Independent Vetting Coalition, a civil society group. Bashir Yusuf, its legal officer, said: "The piracy problem is still happening because the conditions that Rory Lamrock describes are still in place. "I am afraid that the problem is not yet over. As long as these conditions are not positively addressed and as soon as existing security measures are relaxed, piracy will bounce back." Pirates off Somalia are still holding 11 vessels for ransom with 167 crew members as hostages on board. Twenty-one more kidnapped crew members are being held on land. Meanwhile piracy is on the increase on the other side of Africa in the Gulf of Guinea. The IMB said there had been 34 incidents between January and September, rising from 30 in the same period last year.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | • Fall Classic: Detroit Tigers vs. San Francisco Giants
• Buster Posey vs. Miguel Cabrera
• Marco Scutaro vs. Prince Fielder
• Justin Verlander faces Barry Zito in Game One on Wednesday Five out of six playoff series went the distance in what has been a dramatic postseason for baseball. Now we're left with two teams, the Detroit Tigers and the San Francisco Giants who will play in the 108th World Series. Let's take a look at the ballclubs that will face off in Game One of the 2012 Fall Classic on Wednesday. San Francisco GiantsTalk about a team on a roll, that's the San Francisco Giants. Only the 1985 Kansas City Royals have played through six elimination games and lived to tell the tale. The Giants were down two games to Cincinnati in the NLDS, left for Ohio, and swept the Reds in their own ballpark. They were down 3-1 to the St Louis Cardinals, won a game at Busch Stadium, then came back and annihilated the World Champs, limiting their powerful lineup to just one run in those three games. To play a team that's had all the answers over the prior two playoffs like that shows you that the San Francisco Giants more than belong. Now they're back in the Fall Classic for the second time in three seasons with a team that is fielding just three of the same position players from the 2010 world champions – Buster Posey, Pablo Sandoval and Aubery Huff. It's a very different team that GM Brian Sabean put together, bringing similar results in the postseason and in 2012. Plus, they've been getting all the breaks – here's a recap of just a few: • Closer Brian Wilson has Tommy John surgery on April 19. Pitching coach Dave Righetti and manager Bruce Bochy go with a bullpen by committee for most of the season and it actually works (this never happens). • Angel Pagan, who frustrated the Mets front office for several seasons is acquired in the offseason, plays a tremendous center field and becomes a big piece in the athletic Giants offense. • Melky Cabrera leads the NL in hitting for most of the season after coming over for Jonathan Sanchez in a trade with Kansas City. • Pablo Sandoval misses over 50 games and the Giants weather the loss. • Ryan Vogelsong, a career journeyman, enjoys his second outstanding season in a row, while Tim Lincecum, a two-time Cy Young Award winner falls apart. • They lose Melky Cabrera to a drug suspension and instead of crumbling, the team comes together like never before, inspired by their trade deadline acquisition Marco Scutaro. "The Blockbuster" as he's known to his teammates hits .362/.385/.473 in 61 games as a Giant, blowing away the Dodgers in taking the NL West. He goes on to win the NLCS MVP, hitting .500, tying a record with 14 hits. • In Game Five, facing elimination, Barry Zito, who hasn't lived up to his big contract and wasn't even on the 2010 playoff roster, shuts down the Cardinals in their building, throwing 7.2 innings of shutout ball – a moment that Jeremy Affeldt calls the turning point of the series. • In Game Seven of the NLCS, a slumping Hunter Pence, another late season acquisition, hits a key third inning double that super-duper slo-mo replays show hit off of his shattering bat not once, not twice, but three times, messing with the trajectory of the ball, baffling Pete Kozma, allowing two runners to score (a third run came in when John Jay booted the ball in center field). The Giants never look back. Even better, the Giants have home field in the World Series, a place that served them quite well in the NLCS. Why? Because of Melky Cabrera's MVP performance in the All-Star Game, while Giants starter Matt Cain earned the victory – I'm not sure that's happened before. Yes, things have gone very well for the Giants since August, when they broke out of their mediocrity to go 38-21, and the train hasn't stopped yet. There will be little time to reflect – the Giants work out on Tuesday, before getting right back at it on Wednesday, while the Tigers are well rested, which may or may not prove to be an advantage. What is a sure plus for the Tigers is that their pitching is lined up perfectly while the Giants have had to throw out all the stops just to reach the Fall Classic. That means either Zito or Lincecum will face the best pitcher in baseball, Justin Verlander – a tall order in the opener. Whoever doesn't get the nod in Game One will pitch in Game Two, or perhaps Bruce Bochy goes with the mechanically challenged Madison Bumgarner, before getting to Cain and Vogelsong. So their pitching is anything but in position, and their catcher and possible NL MVP Buster Posey is slumping, but something tells you that it won't matter much to these Giants who have taken a road-rarely-traveled to reach the 108th World Series. Detroit TigersWhat will happen with Alex Rodriguez? Will Derek Jeter be able to come back and be able to play shortstop? etc etc etc. The New York Yankees quick, forceful removal from the American League Playoffs led to a fury of questions about the future of the Bronx Bombers, but less, far less celebration of the team that had done the dirty work – the Detroit Tigers, who are about to face the San Francisco Giants in the 2012 World Series. It's not unlike the reaction to the Dallas Mavericks winning the NBA Championship in 2011, when all anyone wanted to talk about was LeBron James and his Miami Heat. That ends now, because it's time for the Fall Classic: the Tigers deserve the attention because they're good, real good, even if they didn't show it in the regular season, back when they were gripping their bats so tightly they turned to sawdust. Now they've settled down, Detroit deserve the attention and adulation. The Tigers are one of the American League more storied franchises – don't think because they are tucked away in the less celebrated Central Division that they are any less important. Just look at some of their contributions – Ty Cobb, Hank Greenburg, Charlie Gehringer, Hal Newhouser, Al Kaline, Denny McClain, Willie Horton, Mark Fidrych, Alan Trammell, Jack Morris, Kirk Gibson and Sparky Anderson. There's plenty more where that came from as well, not to mention their 35-5 start in 1984, a torrid stretch that may never be matched. Now you can add Justin Verlander, Miguel Cabrera and Prince Fielder to that list of great Tigers, a franchise whose place in baseball will only grow greater should they get their 83-year-old owner Mike Ilitch the ring he says will complete his life. One thing's for sure, they'll have their pitching lined up just the way they want, having had to work out in Comerica Park while the Cardinals and Giants slugged it out in seven games. Tigers manager Jim Leyland professed on Sunday there was "no secret to my rotation" leading off with Justin Verlander before giving the ball to Doug Fister, Anibal Sanchez and Max Scherzer. Their staff has been exceptional, less the occasional melt down from closer Jose Valverde – their ERA was 1.38 vs. the Yankees, 2.06 vs the A's. Also keep in mind that while the bullpen is the weak link, Detroit's starters have thrown 62 of their 82 playoff innings (note to Giants, get to that pen). Leyland also gave a probable Game One lineup, which was mighty kind of him: Austin Jackson (CF), Andy Dirks (RF), Miguel Cabrera (3B), Prince Fielder (1B), Delmon Young (LF), Alex Avila (C), Jhonny Peralta (SS) and Omar Infante (2B). Detroit will bat their pitcher in the NL city, which will host the first game. If there is something for those in the Motor City to worry about it's that their Tigers are less battle-tested than their opponents, who had to play a deciding fifth and seventh game in the first two rounds. Oakland did give Detroit a scare when they forced an elimination game, but the Tigers walked all over the Yankees, with Jackson, Cabrera, Peralta and Garcia carrying the load offensively in the ALCS, and have been sitting around for five days, limited to intersquad games while their World Series bats were being sculpted down in Louisville. Baseball is not a game where you want to wait around for that long, and Detroit know that first hand. Back in 2006 when they faced the Cardinals in the World Series, after beating Oakland in the ALCS, they had to wait even longer, six days, and their bats never got it going, hitting .199 against St Louis, going down four games to one in that Fall Classic. The Tigers manager was asked if he would have preferred to have fewer days off before the Fall Classic begins and answered in classic Leyland style: "Let me tell you something buddy, when you sweep the New York Yankees, I don't give a (bleep) if you wait three weeks to get to the World Series. I don't give a (bleep) about that. I'm not that good to say, 'Hey fellas, don't win today. Let's just wait. Let's hold on two more days. ... No, it don't work like that."
It certainly doesn't, however Tigers fans must be a bit concerned about the big boppers, Miguel Cabrera and Prince Fielder, being a bit stale heading into the biggest of games. As it is, Fielder hasn't been at his best yet this postseason. Regardless of the wait, we know these Tigers can hit, pitch, field, and of course, win. It's too late to start doubting a team after they've knocked out teams that have combined to win 189 games. Make your predictions, please. And join David and Hunter Felt for liveblog coverage of every minute of the 2012 World Series from 8pm ET Wednesday.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | • Spaniard expects Armstrong to appeal over UCI decision
• Indurain disputes strength of evidence against American
• Former team-mate Kjaegaard also admits doping Though Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles by the UCI, the former champion Miguel Indurain still refuses to accept his guilt. Indurain, who, along with Jacques Anquetil, Eddy Merckx and Bernard Hinault, is now back at the top of the all-time Tour annals with five victories, told Spanish radio station Marca: "Even now I believe in his innocence. He has always respected all the regulations… He has won all the cases he's had." On that basis, Armstrong waiving his right to appeal confused Indurain. "What surprises me is that he doesn't keep fighting," he said. "I think he will come back and appeal and try to show that he played fair for all those years." Indurain also took issue with the investigative process, challenging the validity of the evidence it produced. "I am a little taken aback. It is strange that this is done only from testimonies. Rules were in place and now it seems they have changed." The US Anti-doping Agency (USADA) relied on witness testimony from 11 former team-mates and 15 other riders, and their thoroughness was praised by the World Anti-Doping Agency chief John Fahey. "It has always been incumbent on anti-doping organisations to undertake a more coherent approach to widespread allegations of doping," said Fahey, "and it is not sufficient to claim that enough was done just because testing did not lead to analytical violations." UCI's decision to strip Armstrong of his titles was further reinforced aftrer Armstrong's former team-mate, Steffen Kjaergaard, supported their allegations. "For 15 years I hid a lie," he told a news conference. "I had believed it was best for me and the sport to carry this dark secret to the grave." Kjaergaard, who raced in the 2000 and 2001 Tours, said that the team took care of his doping needs but kept information in a "closed circuit". "When I was a part of the US Postal Service team, everything was organised by the team. I did not need to arrange for a doctor or do anything by myself," he said. "I cannot say if any of my team-mates were using illegal substances," he added. "I can assume that others at U.S Postal were using something that the witness reports said. I have no direct knowledge though." "The reason that I am coming forth now is that I have had a big problem with my own conscience," Kjaergaard admitted. He began using banned substances - primarily erythropoietin (EPO) and cortisone - in 1998, before joining Postal Service. "During this period there was a new EPO test and we had to resort to intravenous micro-dosages to shorten the window where we could be caught," he said. "I also used other illegal substances on the list but not many." Armstrong, who denies wrongdoing, lost his titles after former team mates testified against him and themselves, describing what USADA called the "most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". Kjaergaard's admission dented Norway's self-image as a "clean" nation, at the forefront of the fight against doping in sports. He was instantly removed from his job as sports director for the Norwegian Cycling Federation. "This is a sad day for Norwegian cycling, but we wanted to have this out in the light," said federation President Harald Tiedemann Hansen, lamenting a "dark day". "He has admitted to doping and he has nothing to do with the cycling world anymore," Tiedemann Hansen told The Associated Press later. "He has been suspended until his term ends on 31 December and he will not continue in the job."
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Vekselberg is one of five oligarchs who control AAR, which has sold its 50% stake in TNK-BP to Rosneft for $28bn He may not be the most famous businessman in Russia, but Viktor Vekselberg is now the richest. That is the status the natural resources investor has been accorded by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, following AAR's sale of its 50% stake in TNK-BP to Rosneft for $28bn (£17.5bn) on Monday. Vekselberg is one of five Russian oligarchs who control the AAR consortium – alongside Mikhail Fridman, Leonard Blavatnik, German Khan and Alexey Kuzmichev – and his latest deal means he is now worth $18bn and the 40th richest person in the world. That puts him more than $700m ahead of the metals and technology investor Alisher Usmanov, the Arsenal investor who had previously topped the list. The deal also added $1.2bn to Fridman's fortune, moving him past the Russian billionaires Roman Abramovich, the Chelsea owner, and the steel and mining billionaire Alexey Mordashov, according to Bloomberg, and making Fridman the country's fifth-richest person. Meanwhile, Blavatnik's fortune rose $1.5bn to $15.4bn, making him the 46th richest person in the world ahead of Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen and Nike chairman Philip Knight, while Khan is worth $10.3bn and Kuzmichev $8bn, according to the index. Vekselberg's rise is fascinating. Born in western Ukraine, he trained as an engineer and went into business in 1990, in the dying months of the Soviet Union. By 1996 he had risen to become chairman of Tyumen Oil (TNK) and negotiated the 50-50 partnership between TNK and BP. He also co-founded his own aluminium group, subsequently part of the giant Rusal, with his business interests now managed by his Renova Group. During the bitter row between BP and its Russian billionaire partners, Vekselberg took a back-seat role, with Fridman and Khan leading the attack on BP. Managers of the British company had a better relationship with Vekselberg and Blavatnik than the other Russian investors, and regarded Vekselberg as a "serious businessman", sources suggested at the time. In a private 2008 meeting with the US's then ambassador in Moscow, John Burns, Vekselberg offered modest criticism of the Russian government. He suggested the Kremlin's response to the economic crisis had been "slow" and "bemoaned that bureaucrats and ministries can't make decisions without permission from above". "I have great respect for our leaders, but …" Vekselberg told Burns, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable. He didn't mention Vladimir Putin by name. During the same meeting the billionaire described himself as "half-American" – his wife, Marina, and their two children, a daughter and a son, are all US citizens. He also pleaded for "open communication" between Russian business and the west; in his role as chair of the international affairs committee of the Union of Russian Industrialists and Entrepreneurs he has dispatched delegations to Washington to meet US officials. His pragmatic attitude towards the US is at odds with the ferocious anti-western rhetoric frequently emanating from the Kremlin. Nevertheless, Vekselberg – who is 56 – understands perfectly the rules of the game in Russia: that rich businessmen should stay out of politics. The fate of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – previously, like Vekselberg, Russia's richest man but now in jail – is obvious to all. In 2004 Vekselberg bought nine Fabergé eggs from the Forbes family in New York. It was a patriotic gesture likely to endear him to those at the top of Russian power. The eggs were later shown off in the Kremlin. The revisions to the rich list occurred after the Kremlin-controlled oil group Rosneft said on Monday it would buy the whole of TNK-BP from AAR and BP for $55bn. As AAR sells its 50% TNK-BP holding to Rosneft, simultaneously the British-based oil company is also offloading its 50% stake in the joint venture for cash and shares in Rosneft valued at about $27bn. The sale of TNK-BP has come after years of disputes between BP and AAR in which the pair have battled each other in the courts, AAR has blocked dividends from the joint venture and the Russian oligarchs have scuppered BP's hopes of an earlier tie-up with Rosneft in the Arctic. While Vekselberg's fortune is on the rise, his ascent to the summit of his country's rich list was also was aided by woes for Usmanov. His fortune has dropped on the index by more than $1bn in the past week as MegaFon, Russia's second-largest mobile-phone company in which Usmanov is a key shareholder, postponed its London flotation.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | José Mujica's government says more damage is done by illegal dealings in drug The president of Uruguay, José Mujica, has announced plans to legalise the production and sale of marijuana under a state monopoly, triggering a lively controversy in Montevideo. The relevant bill will soon be tabled in parliament, where the governing centre-left coalition led by the Broad Front (FA) enjoys a majority but is divided on this issue. Possessing and consuming marijuana was decriminalised in 2000. "There is no question of Uruguay producing and distributing drugs, but the state will control and regulate the market," said interior minister Eduardo Bonomi. "We have a progressive tradition," said Bonomi who, with Mujica, belonged to the Tupamaros urban guerrillas in the 1970s. "At the beginning of the 20th century our country ended the prohibition of alcohol, prostitution and gambling." Abortion is currently in the process ofbeing legalised. "Our approach to marijuana is equally pragmatic," Bonomi said. "The negative effects of consuming marijuana are far less harmful than the outbreak of violence associated with the black market." About 300,000 people (8% of the population) occasionally consume the drug. But the domestic market, currently illegal, is worth about $75m, according to the minister. "The main hazard is not marijuana but the dealers who supply much more dangerous substances such as paco [a low-grade cocaine base], which does terrible damage." The government has not made it clear how production will be managed. Mujica has suggested that 150 hectares of land would be sufficient to cover demand, with distribution being entrusted to a "private company" under strict state control. The opposition is critical of the bill, arguing that it will boost drug use without reducing insecurity. Bonomi admits that crime is steadily increasing in Uruguay, but stresses that "it is much lower than neighbouring countries such as Brazil or Argentina." Insecurity is a prime concern for Uruguayans and a main cause of criticism of the president, whose approval ratings have fallen from 66% in 2004 when elected to 40%, according to a recent poll. However, three former Latin American presidents – Fernando Henrique Cardoso, César Gaviria and Ernesto Zedillo, respectively of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico – have called for governments to take control of drugs. Guatemala is in favour of the Mujica plan, and Bolivia is looking at ways of legalising coca leaves. • This article appeared in Guardian Weekly, which incorporates material from Le Monde
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | George Entwistle tells MPs he is surprised film on sexual abuse claims was stopped by the programme's editor The BBC director general has admitted that after seeing the Panorama documentary on the Jimmy Savile sex abuse allegations, he believes the earlier Newsnight investigation into the claims should have continued. George Entwistle told a committee of MPs on Tuesday that with hindsight he was surprised the Newsnight investigation into Savile was stopped by programme editor Peter Rippon in late 2011 and that "further investigation would have been appropriate". "I came away from the Panorama firmly of the view that that investigation ... should have been allowed to continue," Entwistle said, referring to Monday night's Panorama special. "On the basis of what I now know I am surprised nothing further happened with it," he added, appearing before the Commons culture, media and sport select committee to answer questions on the BBC's handling of the Savile scandal. "There was clearly some good journalistic material here. Even if there was not the prospect of an immediate transmission further investigation would have been appropriate." Entwistle acknowledged that there had been a "significant breakdown in communication" between Rippon and the Newsnight producer and reporter behind the investigation, Meirion Jones and Liz MacKean. Both Jones and MacKean featured in Monday's Panorama documentary talking about the circumstances in which their investigation into the Savile sex abuse allegations was dropped and were critical of the BBC's decision not to broadcast the report. Entwistle said the it was "a matter of regret and embarrassment" that there were factual inaccuracies in a blog by Rippon, published on 2 October, explaining why he dropped the Savile investigation in early December 2011. The BBC made three factual corrections to the blog on Monday, after Jones and MacKean had challenged its content, and announced that Rippon would be stepping aside from his job until an inquiry by former head of Sky News Nick Pollard into how Newsnight's Savile investigation was handled is completed. "I was very disappointed indeed to find out the blog turned out to be as inaccurate as it did, or course I was," Entwistle said. "I asked Peter Rippon to step aside because of my disappointment in the nature of the inaccuracies in the blog. I have to give him the best possible chance to make his case and be vindicated by the Pollard review." Entwistle said the Pollard review might take up to six weeks to complete. Labour MP Ben Bradshaw responded that this was an absurd length of time. Panorama's Savile scandal special featured an email Rippon sent to Jones in November 2011 in which the Newsnight editor asked the producer to find out from the Crown Prosecution Service whether it had dropped a case against the late Jim'll Fix It Presenter because he was too old. "That makes it a better story – our sources so far are just the women and a second–hand briefing," Rippon wrote. Entwistle was asked at the select committee by Conservative MP Therese Coffey what he thought of Rippon's use of the phrase "just the women". "The phrase, on the face of it, is not in the least defensible," he replied. The committee chairman, Conservative MP John Whittingdale, said Entwistle had shown "an extraordinary lack of curiosity" when he was first told about Newsnight's Savile investigation and failed to find out more details of what it was about. At the time Entwistle was the BBC's director of vision and did not have management responsibility for Newsnight. However, he did have responsibility for BBC1, which was planning a Savile tribute show for later in December 2011. Entwistle said a conversation on 2 December last year with BBC Nnews director, Helen Boaden, about the Newsnight Savile story – previously described as lasting 10 seconds – took place at a Women in Film & Television awards lunch. "To the best of my recollection she said 'I wanted to tell you that Newsnight are looking at Jimmy Savile or investigating Jimmy Savile and if it comes off, if it stands up, it may have an impact on your Christmas schedule.' I said 'Thanks for letting me know – please update me' and what I meant by that was whether or not it would be going ahead," he added. He admitted it was "relatively rare" for Boaden to warn him about a Newsnight story. Whittingdale asked if Boaden subsequently contacted Entwistle to let him know the report would not be going ahead. Entwistle replied: "We never spoke about it again, I inferred the decision had been taken not to go ahead, which turned out to be the case." He was then asked by Whittingdale what he thought Newsnight was investigating. "I don't remember reflecting on it," Entwistle replied. Whittingdale then said: "You didn't want to know?" "It was a determination not to show an undue interest," Entwistle responded. Entwistle told MPs that since the Savile scandal blew up the BBC had received complaints about alleged sexual harassment from "eight to 10" individuals, with all information to be handed over to the police. He also revealed that the BBC had asked barrister Dinah Rose QC to look at its handling of sexual harassment charges. Rose has been acting for News International in the high court over civil damages claims relating to alleged News of the World phone hacking. • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication". • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Full coverage as George Entwistle is questioned by select committee over the Newsnight row and other allegations. By John Plunkett and Dugald Baird
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | President appears to endorse nuclear talks, despite dismissing report of direct discussions President Obama has said the Iranian nuclear crisis could be resolved by bilateral negotiations between Washington and Tehran. In the course of the last of three presidential debates – which chiefly served to underline the striking similarities in the foreign policies of the president and his challenger, Mitt Romney – Obama appeared to open a new route towards a negotiated settlement to the worsening impasse over Iran's nuclear programme. For the past few years, talks with Iran have been handled by a group of six major powers: the five permanent members of the security council together with Germany. The US has had occasional meetings with Iranian officials alongside multilateral talks but the Iranians, hamstrung by deep internal divisions in Tehran, have shied away from such public encounters over the past three years. During Monday night's debate in Florida, two weeks before what is expected to be a close election, Obama dismissed a New York Times report over the weekend that the US and Iran were exploring the possibility of holding direct bilateral nuclear negotiations after the election. But a few minutes later, he appeared to contradict himself, in what was possibly an unguarded remark made out of irritation that Romney had taken to echoing many of his administration's policies and presenting them as his own. "I'm pleased that you now are endorsing our policy of applying diplomatic pressure and potentially having bilateral discussions with the Iranians to end their nuclear programme," he said, although Romney had made no mention of such discussions. While the White House has rejected the New York Times report, it has not specifically denied that American and Iranian officials have been holding secret meetings in parallel to the public multilateral negotiations, since soon after Obama came to office in 2009. Mark Fitzpatrick, a former state department expert on proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: "I have been hearing for some time that they had been having private discussions, and now it is starting to become public." Western officials say that within a few weeks of the US election, a new round of talks are expected between the six powers and Iran at which the offer put on the table in return for curbs on Iran's uranium enrichment would be "reformulated". The six powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany) will make it clearer to Iran that relief from the current severe sanctions regime will be available if Iran stops producing 20%-enriched uranium – a particular proliferation concern as it could easily turned into weapons-grade uranium should Iran take the decision to make a bomb. US officials have said they expect that meeting to go ahead, but President Obama signalled on Monday night it could be a springboard to a new bilateral negotiating track to run separately or in tandem with the broader talks. "There will be a new round of talks before the end of November, and I think what the Iranians have agreed to is to meet bilaterally with US officials at the margins of those talks," Fitzpatrick said. "Ultimately, this is something that has to be resolved between the US and Iran. They are the two main protagonists. Whatever they agree to, the others will go along with." The prospect of a new phase in the negotiations possibly opens up a significant difference in outcomes in foreign policy as a result of the 6 November elections, where otherwise the differences are relatively minor. It is not at all clear whether Romney would enter such talks without a full policy review, and his close relationship with the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, suggests he would pay more heed to Israeli reservations about such negotiations, which are likely, if successful, to leave Iran with a limited right to uranium enrichment. It is also far from assured that, if presented with such an opportunity, Iran's elderly and infirm supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, would have the confidence to embrace it.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani is first head of state to visit Gaza since Hamas took control more than five years ago The Emir of Qatar has become the first head of state to visit Gaza since the Islamist movement Hamas took control of the tiny enclave more than five years ago. Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani entered the Gaza Strip from Egypt at the border crossing of Rafah, which is also the headquarters of illegal trading through a vast network of tunnels which flourished after Israel tightened its blockade on Gaza in 2007. He was given a red-carpet welcome by Hamas officials. The emir was due to inaugurate a $254m (£160m) investment programme in Gaza by the Sunni Gulf state. Among the projects funded by the Qataris is a new housing development on the site of a former Israeli settlement, evacuated in 2005, and several new roads through the territory. Qatari flags and posters expressing thanks were strung along streets as a 30-vehicle convoy, filled with Qatari security forces, made advance preparations for the visit. Sheikh Hamad was expected to address a rally at a stadium in Gaza City later on Tuesday. Hamas welcomed the emir's visit. "It is the first visit by an Arab leader at this level to Gaza," it said in a statement. "This breaks the political isolation of the government and opens the door to break the siege." Despite winning democratic elections in 2006, Hamas has been largely isolated by the international community since it took control of Gaza in a bloody battle with its rival faction, Fatah. However, some European governments are believed to maintain back-channel contacts with the Islamist party. Iran, which had been a key patron of Hamas, has withheld funding for the faction since its refusal to back the Syrian regime in its civil war. Qatar has called for military intervention in Syria to topple the government. In the wake of the breach with Tehran and the rise of Islamist parties in the Arab spring, Hamas has built up relations elsewhere in the region, most notably its parent organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Mohammed Morsi, the Egyptian president, welcomed the emir's visit, saying it was part of his country's efforts to "break the siege on the people" of Gaza. A spokesperson for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said that while Qatari help for the people of Gaza was welcome, the "legitimate representation of the Palestinian people" must be preserved. Hamas promised tight security for Sheikh Hamad's visit. The visit comes amid an ongoing cycle of Israeli air strikes and militant rocket fire from Gaza. Early on Tuesday, an Israeli soldier was critically injured in an explosion close to the border fence between Gaza and Israel. The emir was expected to return to Egypt later on Tuesday.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Resignation of Keishu Tanaka adds to pressure on prime minister Yoshihiko Noda to call an early general election Japan's prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, has come under renewed pressure to call an early general election following his justice minister's resignation over past connections to organised crime. Keishu Tanaka, who was appointed just three weeks ago in a cabinet reshuffle intended to boost support for Noda, stepped down on Tuesday after a weekly magazine exposed his previous contacts with members of the yakuza, Japan's influential crime syndicates. The government cited poor health as the cause of Tanaka's resignation after the 74-year-old was admitted to hospital last Friday with chest pains, high blood pressure and an irregular heartbeat. The chief cabinet secretary, Osamu Fujimura, told reporters: "After having a health examination, it was determined that with his symptoms, it was necessary to rest. It is regrettable, but I have accepted the resignation." But revelations that Tanaka, who is responsible for the country's criminal justice system, had acted as a matchmaker at the wedding of a senior gang member, and attended a party organised by the same gang's leader 30 years ago fuelled speculation that he would step down. Soon after becoming justice minister, Tanaka admitted receiving 420,000 yen [£3,200] from a foreign-owned company between 2006 and 2009. Japan's electoral laws forbid politicians from knowingly accepting funds from foreign sources. His office said it had returned the money. Tanaka claimed he had been unaware of the groom's connections when he agreed to act as nakodo – a ceremonial role in Japanese weddings – and had no idea the party was being hosted by a yakuza boss. His resignation has attracted fresh criticism of Noda's judgment following the resignation in September 2011 of his trade and industry minister, Yoshio Hachiro, who had described an area in Fukushima, scene of last year's nuclear disaster, as a "ghost town" and joked about radioactive contamination. Shigeru Ishiba, secretary general of the main opposition Liberal Democratic party [LDP], told reporters shortly before Tanaka's resignation: "Even if he quits, that won't be the end of it." Noda, though, has so far resisted calls for an early general election, with polls suggesting his party would lose just three years after it swept to power in a landslide. "The resignation is likely to further weaken Noda's support within his party. Obviously, it will become more difficult for him to exert leadership," Mikitaka Masuyama, a professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, told Reuters. "But it is uncertain whether this could be a trigger for an early election. Given falling public support for the government, there is no benefit in him dissolving parliament and calling snap election at the moment." Noda also faces criticism of his handling of the economy and a controversial doubling of sales tax to 10% over the next three years. In return for their support for the tax rise, the LDP had demanded that Noda call an election by the end of the year. The LDP and other opposition parties control the upper house, enabling them to block key legislation. Noda, whose government's support rating slipped below 20% for the first time this week, promised to hold an election soon but has yet to specify when. His refusal to name a date is expected to lead to further deadlock as parliament prepares to debate a key deficit-bond issuance bill.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Follow live updates after the UN says there are contingency plans for redeploying a peacekeeping force in Syria but hopes are fading for an Eid al-Adha ceasefire
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Chairman of select committee says director general George Entwistle in particular will have to answer for his role in scandal The BBC has some "very big questions" to answer over Jimmy Savile, says the chairman of the Commons select committee that is to quiz the corporation's director general over its handling of the sex abuse scandal. John Whittingdale, chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, told BBC Breakfast that George Entwistle would recognise he had to deal with the concerns quickly because the BBC was being "damaged very badly by the stream of revelations and by the apparent mishandling of them". Entwistle is to be questioned by MPs at 10.30am on Tuesday, following days of chaotic revelations at the corporation that have culminated in the editor of Newsnight, Peter Rippon, stepping aside on Monday after the BBC said he had made "inaccurate or incomplete" statements about the scandal. Asked how the questions at the select committee would overlap or differ from the BBC's own investigation, Whittingdale said: "There are some issues which we'll want to raise with the director general which are not covered by the inquiry, particularly the way in which the BBC has dealt with all of these matters – the handling of them over the past few weeks and also about George Entwistle's own knowledge – those are not part of the investigation." He added: "The director of news apparently told him [Entwistle] that Newsnight was carrying out an investigation into Jimmy Savile. Now he said that he is very careful not to interfere in the editorial independence of the news division and for that reason he didn't ask any more questions. "But on the other hand he was in the process of commissioning the most fulsome tributes to Jimmy Savile, which went out on the BBC over that Christmas, and I just find it very surprising that, having been told by the director of news, given a warning, he didn't think it appropriate at least to ask what the investigation was about, and instead he went ahead with those programmes." The committee will consider asking Rippon and other Newsnight journalists to appear before them if they feel Entwistle's evidence is incomplete. Entwistle, himself a former Newsnight editor, forced Rippon to stand aside from his job at the head of the BBC2 programme. Rippon has been in the spotlight since it emerged he scrapped a Newsnight report on allegations of abuse by Savile a few weeks before the BBC was to air tributes to the DJ and presenter, who died last October aged 84. Had the Newsnight film aired, the BBC programme would have been the first to reveal claims of Savile's abuse of teenage girls – 10 months before an ITV documentary revealed his activities. Ben Bradshaw, a member of the committee, said: "If the committee doesn't feel that Entwistle has given us a satisfactory explanation, then I think we will want to talk to other people. Somebody needs to establish the facts, and act quickly and decisively upon them." A Conservative member of the committee, Damian Collins, said it would "have to consider" whether to launch a broader inquiry into the BBC's handling of the sexual abuse revelations. Such a move could lead to public sessions that lay bare the BBC's internal row over the scandal. Collins said MPs would have to consider Entwistle's evidence – and possibly wait for an independent inquiry led by Nick Pollard, the former head of Sky News, which is due to report by the end of the year. The BBC has issued two significant corrections to Rippon's version of events that had been published in a BBC blogpost on 3 October, when the allegations about abuse by Savile first emerged. The move, made before Monday night's airing on BBC1 of a Panorama programme about the scandal, was prompted in part by a dispute about Rippon's published account. Panorama obtained previously unpublished emails from Newsnight journalists involved in the Savile investigation complaining to Rippon that his version of events was wrong. The journalists – producer Meirion Jones and reporter Liz MacKean – are both likely to give their version of events to the select committee if asked. Bitter that their investigation into Savile's conduct was halted last year, both gave interviews to Panorama. The BBC determined that Rippon was incorrect when he wrote: "We are confident that all the women we spoke to had contacted the police independently already. We also had no new evidence against any other person that would have helped the police." Instead, the BBC statement said, the truth was that "it appears that in some cases women had not spoken to the police and that the police were not aware of all the allegations". Panorama's coverage (video) of abuse by Savile in the 1970s largely consisted of stories already highlighted in newspapers, including the case of Kevin Cook, who, as a nine-year-old boy scout, was molested on the set of Jim'll Fix It. There was also a broad allegation of a sex ring operated by staff connected with Top of the Pops, although this was not directly linked to Savile. The programme also revealed that Rippon did not see the vital on-the-record interview his journalists had secured with one of Savile's victims, Karin Ward. Rippon also used a surprising phrase in an email to dismiss the evidence that the production team had secured, noting that it consisted of a background briefing and "just the women" – referring to on-the-record but anonymous testimonies Newsnight had obtained against Savile. Newsnight's key evidence came from Ward, who said she had been a victim of Savile and repeatedly told programme-makers she had never gone to the police. The BBC also said Rippon was wrong to write "we found no evidence against the BBC" in Newsnight's investigation last November. The correction said the Newsnight team had uncovered "some allegations of abusive conduct on BBC premises", although there was "no allegation" that BBC staff were aware of Savile's alleged activities. David Cameron stepped into the row on Monday, saying he was troubled that the BBC had felt obliged to make corrections to Rippon's public statements. The developments were "concerning because the BBC has effectively changed its story about why it dropped the Newsnight programme about Jimmy Savile". He added that this raised "serious questions" and he expected the Pollard review and other inquiries to answer them. The BBC and other institutions where Savile is alleged to have abused children are facing up to 18 claims for damages from the victims. Liz Dux, a lawyer specialising in child abuse cases, said the number of cases had risen in the past week as women became more confident about suing in light of the Metropolitan police revelation that Savile may have been one of the UK's worst sex offenders. Dux is preparing to bring cases against the BBC, Stoke Mandeville hospital and Duncroft approved school on the grounds that they had "vicarious liability" for the activities of their staff or their agents.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Vekselberg is one of five Russian oligarchs who control the AAR consortium, which has sold its 50% stake in TNK-BP to Rosneft for $28bn (£17.5bn) He may not be the most famous businessman in Russia, but Viktor Vekselberg is now the richest. That is the status the natural resources investor has been accorded by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, following AAR's sale of its 50% stake in TNK-BP to Rosneft for $28bn (£17.5bn) on Monday. Vekselberg is one of five Russian oligarchs who control the AAR consortium – alongside Mikhail Fridman, Leonard Blavatnik, German Khan and Alexey Kuzmichev – and his latest deal means he is now worth $18bn. That puts him more than $700m ahead of metals and technology investor Alisher Usmanov, the Arsenal investor who had previously topped the list. The deal also added $1.2bn to Fridman's fortune, moving him past Russian billionaires Roman Abramovich, the Chelsea owner, and steel and mining billionaire Alexey Mordashov, according to Bloomberg, and making Fridman the country's fifth-richest person. Meanwhile, Blavatnik's fortune rose $1.5bn to $15.4bn, ahead of Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, and Nike chairman Philip Knight, while Khan is worth $10.3bn and Kuzmichev $8bn, according to the index. The revisions to the rich list occurred after the Kremlin-controlled oil group Rosneft said on Monday it would buy the whole of TNK-BP from AAR and BP for $55bn. As AAR sells its 50% TNK-BP holding to Rosneft, simultaneously the British-based oil company is also offloading its 50% stake in the joint venture for cash and shares in Rosneft valued at about $27bn. The sale of TNK-BP has come after years of disputes between BP and AAR in which the pair have battled each other in the courts, as well as AAR blocking dividends from the joint venture as well as the Russian oligarchs scuppering BP's hopes of an earlier tie-up with Rosneft in the Arctic. While Vekselberg's fortune is on the rise, his ascent to the summit of his country's rich list was also was aided by woes for Usmanov. His fortune has dropped on the index by more than $1bn in the past week as MegaFon, Russia's second-largest mobile-phone company in which Usmanov is a key shareholder, postponed its London flotation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, PASOK leader Evangelos Kouvelis and Democratic Left's Fotis Kouvelis will hold talks this afternoon in an attempt to finalise Greece's €13.5bn austerity programme
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | President portrays Romney's policies as haphazard but candidates' performances are unlikely to influence election result Barack Obama went on the offensive over foreign policy in the third and final presidential debate, repeatedly accusing Mitt Romney of flip-flopping on major international issues but failing to deliver a killer blow to his opponent's resurgent campaign. While the president emerged as the narrow winner on the night, the encounter, which was cordial and largely uneventful compared with the previous two debates, is unlikely to have much impact on the outcome of the election. Going into the debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, Obama had an inbuilt advantage on foreign policy and security. As president, with access to daily briefings by intelligence analysts, diplomats and generals, he is better briefed and it showed as he dominated Romney in the first half of the debate. The Republican candidate appeared unsure at times and occasionally stumbled over his lines as if struggling to remember his briefing notes. He began sweating as Obama, aggressive from the start, got the better of him during exchanges on Iran, Iraq and Russia as well as on US military spending. Obama described his opponent twice as "wrong and reckless" and accused him of being "all over the map" on his foreign policy positions. The president worked through a list of issues on which he said Romney had been wrong, from support for the 2003 Iraq invasion through to opposing setting a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. "What we need to do with respect to the Middle East is strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map," said Obama. "And unfortunately that's the kind of opinions that you've offered throughout this campaign, and it is not a recipe for American strength, or keeping America safe over the long haul." But with a growing sense in the Republican camp that the White House might just be within reach after all, Romney appeared happy to settle for a safe, gaffe-free performance in which his main goal was to reassure the US public that he was not a warmonger. On issue after issue, from Iranian sanctions to withdrawal from Afghanistan, there was little difference between his position and that of the administration, but Romney insisted he would have projected American strength more effectively. "Nowhere in the world is our influence greater than it was four years ago," said Romney. But while the debate was supposed to be solely about foreign policy, domestic concerns were never far from the surface and the candidates took every opportunity to pivot to their stump speech attacks over the economy and tax. The same was true in the spin room afterwards where both campaign teams dispensed quickly with debate comments and moved instead to analysis of the state of the race in swing states. One of the most telling moments came when Obama, in a flash of normally suppressed arrogance, lectured Romney on military developments as if he was a child. Responding to a pledge by Romney to increase military spending and a complaint that the navy had fewer ships, Obama resorted to heavy sarcasm. "You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1917. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines," Obama said. But Romney did not crumple and recovered in the second half, in particular when he managed to drag the debate on to domestic economic concerns. On the Middle East he said an attack on Iran would be a last resort and that he was against direct US military involvement in Syria. He sought to neutralise the advantage Obama enjoys thanks to the killing of Osama bin Laden by insisting that his own policy was about more than "going after the bad guys". "We can't just kill our way out of this mess," Romney said. Romney managed to get in some hits on Obama too, accusing him of having conducted "an apology tour" of the Middle East at the start of his presidency and this was perceived by America's enemies as a sign of weakness. "Mr President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators," he said. The idea that Obama is an apologist for American values resonates strongly among conservatives. Obama responded by describing the "apology tour" as "probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign". "If we're going to talk about trips that we've taken," Obama said, in a reference to Romney's widely criticised summer tour of Britain, Poland and Israel, "when I was a candidate for office, first trip I took was to visit our troops. And when I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn't take donors. I didn't attend fundraisers ... I went to ... the Holocaust museum there to remind myself of the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable." The instant polls agreed that Obama carried the night. Public Policy Polling published a poll showing Obama won the debate 53% to 42%. A CNN poll gave it to Obama by 48% to 40%. But few believe that the clash will have done much to affect the course of the race, which enters its final two weeks with Romney still enjoying a surge that began after his triumph over a listless Obama in the first debate in Denver on 3 October. Obama won the second to put himself back in the race. Although he also won the third, foreign policy is not a major concern for voters and it is unlikely to result in any major poll swings. The exchanges revealed there is little major difference between the two in term of their approach to security and foreign affairs. On Iran both vowed it will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Rommey said he would introduce more stringent sanctions; Obama said they were already as stringent as they could possibly be. Suprisingly there was almost nothing on the Benghazi consulate attack. Having twice botched the issue Romney opted against returning to it in depth. Obama teased Romney over his claim that Russia rather than al-Qaida was America's number one foe. Romney said he had meant Russia was America's biggest geopolitical foe and al-Qaida its biggest security problem. Both agreed that in Syria President Bashar Assad will not survive. Obama said there was no difference between the two on policy towards Syria except that Romney wanted to send heavy weapons to the rebels. Romney said America should be arming the "responsible" rebels. "Syria is an opportunity for us," Romney said. "Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world ... so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us ... We should have taken a leading role." The two jostled over who was the closest to Israel, with Romney berating Obama for failing to visit Israel during a Middle East tour. Stuart Stevens, one of Romney's chief advisers, said: "The more people see Governor Romney the more comfortable they are with him." He criticised Obama for the sarcasm he displayed over the smaller navy. "I do not think his tone and demeanour is something that people would find attractive," Stevens said. David Plouffe, one of Obama's chief advisers, said: "The president was strong. Romney was unsteady."
  | | | | | | | | | |  | |  | |  |
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire