LED Lighting News

Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, has been forced to scrap half his itinerary on a trip to Scotland less than a month after he had to take refuge in a pub after being heckled and abused by demonstrators in Edinburgh.

Farage had endured a torrid half-hour of abuse and heckling from pro-independence and anti-racist campaigners who called him “scum”, a “racist” and a “bawbag” on Edinburgh’s Royal Mile last month, as they thwarted his plans for a press conference with political journalists from the Scottish parliament.

Undaunted, he arrived in Aberdeen on Tuesday to promote his party’s campaign for this week’s Aberdeen Donside Scottish parliamentary byelection. But yet again, his party claimed, Farage was forced to revise his plans after one of the city’s main hotels and its police commanders ran scared of the protesters.

Ukip claims that a booking for a large lunch and press conference at the Marriott hotel, a well-known venue beside at the city’s bustling airport, was cancelled abruptly with only a few days’ notice after an Aberdeen anti-fascist group threatened to demonstrate outside.

The hotel vigorously disputes that it had been influenced by demonstrators, insisting their provisional booking could not be taken up because the hotel was too busy.

Farage’s plans to take tea with Marie Bolton, the independent depute leader of Aberdeen city council, were subsequently cancelled with barely 30 minutes’ notice after a group of 15 anti-fascist and pro-independence activists gathered outside the city’s Town House council building.

After hosting lunch for about a dozen activists and officials in a hotel some miles from the Marriott, Farage alleged the move was caused by fear of the “undemocratic yobs” who had forced him to retreat under police escort into a locked pub last month.

That allegation puzzled the subdued bunch of demonstrators outside the Town House: there were no police officers there at all, and the Town House council offices are less than 50 metres from Aberdeen’s police headquarters. There was no sign of the anger or intemperate abusiveness of the Edinburgh demonstration.

Alec Westwood, an actor and demonstrator, was bemused by Farage’s claims of intimidation. The Aberdeen protestors said they had no intention of repeating the scenes in Edinburgh. “We don’t need to be offensive,” he said. “But we should allowed to stand up and say what we think about him.”

The Police Scotland commanders they spoke to “were perfectly happy both for those to demonstrate and for us to have a cup of tea”, said Monckton. But Bolton’s office was given a different message, said Farage.

“I was invited to have go and take tea [with Bolton]. We now know that invitation was withdrawn,” the Ukip leader said. “They told us that somebody very senior advised them not to continue so we took that advice. I’m sorry that she was pressured or felt she was pressured into not allowing this meeting to go ahead.”

However, a Police Scotland spokesman said: “The police haven’t had any part [in that decision] whatsoever.”

There was just one confrontation – and one arrest – as Farage went to a nearby pub before his flight home. After an intense debate with Farage about his views on sharia law and the status of Norway in the EU, a bearded young man was detained after spraying a drink at the retreating back of a Ukip official.

Article source: http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/uk/rss/~3/WBJ5hzFcuhU/story01.htm

The polarisation of the high street is showing no signs of slowing as new data reveals that discount chains Aldi and Lidl, along with high end grocer Waitrose, have won more customers this year than any of their supermarket rivals.

Asda, the UK’s second biggest supermarket, is suffering hardest from the squeeze as customers switch to cheaper rivals and the number three supermarket, Sainsbury’s, threatens its position.

Fraser McKevitt, a retail analyst for Kantar, said: “The jury is slightly out at the moment on when Sainsbury’s will overtake Asda. The latter tends to do very well in the summer period, with non-food as families buy barbecues and beachballs, but Sainsbury’s usually improves around Christmas.

“Sainsbury’s seem to have cracked the fine line between price and quality, while doing well in convenience and online. Asda will be looking at how to run their online business and transforming its Netto convenience stores as effectively as possible.”

Sainsbury’s market share in the 12 weeks to 9 June was 16.7%, up from 16.6% a year ago, while Asda fell from 17.2% to 16.9%, according to Kantar.

Discounters continue to take customers from their bigger rivals as Aldi’s market share hit a record 3.6% for the three month period, up by nearly a third from a year earlier, while rival Lidl now controls 3% of the market. Waitrose, part of the John Lewis Partnership, also recorded an impressive growth, taking 4.9% of the market from 4.6% a year earlier.

McKevitt suggested this was not because of a growing disparity between rich and poor, but more because both ends of the high street were drawing customers away from bigger rivals. He said: “They are fighting over the middle ground. The discounters have introduced varying products like fresh food in the hope to attract shoppers from others, while Waitrose has managed to convey the message that their prices are not as high as people might think.

“People used to see the discounters as attracting a less-affluent shopper, but that is moving. It’s no secret people are shopping around looking for the best value. If you have the time to shop around, you get the reward for that.”

An average spend at Lidl is still under £20, suggesting customers are using the discounters to top up their shopping, he added.

Tesco is still the biggest supermarket with a market share of 30.5%, down from 31% last year.

Article source: http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/uk/rss/~3/TSMWWZ1vp4A/story01.htm

School staff and the friends of two pupils in Hertfordshire killed after they were hit by a passenger train, have paid tribute to the teenagers.

Charleigh Disbrey, 15, and an 18-year-old Mert Karaoglan were hit by a First Capital Connect train near Elstree and Borehamwood station on Monday night.

The site of the accident is not open to the public and police are not treating the deaths as suspicious.

Both teenagers were pupils at Hertswood Academy, in Borehamwood.

The school’s headteacher, Peter Gillet, said: “At the start of the school day today we were contacted by British transport police to inform us of an incident that had occurred overnight involving two of our students.

“As a close community, obviously we are devastated by this tragedy. Both students were talented, hard working and well respected members of our academy. Our thoughts are with their families at this most difficult time.”

A school friend, who did not want to be named, said: “We didn’t know for certain if they were going out together but they were close friends. She was a talented girl, she came across as very happy, she was always caring about other people. It was a shock for everyone.

“Mert had just finished his A-levels. He was very talented with the camera and was going to do graphic design. He was a stills photographer and I just think he was down to earth. He was very humble and he always seemed quite chilled out. He was a good guy and had a good way with people.”

The school said it was counselling those affected by the tragedy and would monitor the wellbeing of students over coming days to assess whether further support was needed. Police officers were also at the school yesterday helping to comfort students and staff.

Charleigh, known to friends as CJ, was a musician whose videos had been seen thousands of times on YouTube. On an online talent site the GCSE student wrote about her ambition to inspire people with her music. She said: “I write and compose my own music all the time! I sing, act and play the piano/keyboard. I am very determined and don’t get put off easy. I want to change the world with my music. I will never give up trying to achieve my dream. Music is my life, my passion, my dream and my everything. I want to be an inspiration.

“I have been the lead role in every school play I have ever done. I write my own plays and am working on a 10-minute one at the moment. I don’t wish to be famous for the money . I want to be famous because I want people to relate to music. I want to be someone’s inspiration, I want to make someone feel like they’re not alone. I am very determined! I never, ever give up.”

The teenagers were pronounced dead at the scene by emergency services. Gary Sanderson, from the East of England ambulance service, said: “On arrival, it was evident nothing could be done.”

Superintendent Phil Wilkinson, from British transport police, called it a “tragic and acutely sad incident”. He said his officers were continuing their investigations but not treating the deaths as suspicious.

First Capital Connect said there had been two drivers but no passengers on board the train, which was going from St Albans to Sutton. Roger Perkins, a spokesman for the train company, said: “We have been giving our full support to our employees who were at the scene and will do all we can to help the emergency services in their investigation.”

Friends of the dead teenagers took to social media to express their shock at the news and pay tribute to them.

Paige McDonald wrote on Facebook: “RIP CJ Mert’. CJ was a beautiful, young talented girl that will be truly missed. Gone but not forgotten’. We all lovemiss you.”

On a tribute page set up on Facebook, Robert Twiner wrote: “RIP to my beautiful cousin CJ. We are thinking about you every second.”

Flowers and cards were left at the school gates and site of the incident. By the end of the school day, about a dozen bunches of flowers rested against the school fence. One read: “CJ and Mert. Two such amazing people that will never be forgotten. I’m going to miss you so much CJ. RIP. Love you.”

British transport Transport police appealed for anyone who had witnessed the incident or had information to get in touch.

Article source: http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/uk/rss/~3/aZHxTa2XRPM/story01.htm

The former chief executive of the troubled Co-operative Bank, Neville Richardson, has quit the boards of MS Bank and estate agency Countrywide in the wake of criticism of his tenure at the mutual.

Richardson was the boss of Britannia building society when it merged with the Co-op Bank in a 2009 deal that is now facing scrutiny due to the bad debts it loaded on the Co-op. The bank has been downgraded to junk status and is raiding its bondholders to plug a £1.5bn shortfall.

Richardson insisted that he wanted to correct “considerable inaccuracies” about his role in the Britannia deal and his departure from the Co-op Bank in 2011.

Announcing the resignation of the non-executive directorships last night, he said: “Following the ill-informed and inaccurate commentary in the media concerning myself and my departure from the Co-operative Bank and the

acquisition of Britannia Building Society by the Co-operative Group, this was the right thing to do.”

Richardson added that he would “welcome” the opportunity to assist any official enquiry into the Britannia merger or the events of two years ago.

MPs were told yesterday that Lloyds Bank discovered an alarming shortfall in the Co-op Bank’s capital position which made it unlikely the Co-op would ever be able to complete the purchase of 632 Lloyds branches. The discovery in December 2012 came five months before the shock Moody’s report that downgraded the mutual’s bonds and this week’s £1.5bn rescue package.

In evidence to the Treasury select committee, the Lloyds chief executive, António Horta-Osório, revealed that in December 2012 Co-op Bank privately handed Lloyds a revised projection of its future with the business it was planning to buy from Lloyds, and it became apparent that it did not have sufficient capital.

“We had doubts about Co-op’s capability in December 2012 when we were given the revised plan for the Co-operative Group,” he said. “From the combined plan for Co-op and TSB, our analysis was clear that there was a shortfall of capital. And that was when we had our first concerns about their ability to close the deal.”

On Monday Co-op Bank unveiled a £1.5bn rescue deal to plug a hole in its capital and stave off a taxpayer-funded bailout, which will see the bank’s bondholders suffer deep losses. The recapitalisation came after Co-op Bank said in April that it was pulling out of the deal to buy the 632 Lloyds branches, which was swiftly followed by a six-notch downgrade of Co-op’s bonds by the ratings agency Moody’s. Moody’s downgraded Co-op again on Tuesday, warning that “further burden sharing” may be required if the restructuring of the bank proves unsuccessful, and said bondholders may get as little as 35% of their initial investment back.

It has also emerged that NBNK, the failed rival bidder for the Lloyds branches, warned the board of Lloyds in a letter in January 2012 that Co-op would not be able to finance a deal and that the “overstretch” would put Co-op’s financial security and mutuality in jeopardy.

Horta-Osório told MPs that Lloyds shared its concern about Co-op Bank with the regulator, then the Financial Services Authority, and demanded assurances from the mutual that it was still in a position to go ahead. “We were told that Co-op Bank had several options that were meaningful, such as selling its asset management business. But we were concerned and we had doubts. We were reassured that they had options, but we were not totally reassured.”

From December Lloyds began to focus on plan B – the separate flotation of TSB as an independent bank – but the bank did not go public with its doubts about Co-op or pull out of the deal.

Horta-Osório said Lloyds, since it was mandated by the EU to break up the bank, had in any case to press ahead with establishing a separate TSB entity, so gave Co-op the benefit of the doubt. “We were surprised to see that there was suddenly a shortfall in capital [at Co-op]. But we had to go ahead and build a [separate] bank in any case,” he said.

Lloyds insists that at no time did it face political pressure to forge a deal with Co-op to boost the mutual sector. But Horta-Osório and the Lloyds chairman, Sir Win Bischoff, were repeatedly pressed by MPs on why it turned down the NBNK bid, which was worth £630m upfront compared with the £450m that Co-op was prepared to pay, plus a further £250m over time. Bischoff said: “The Co-op Bank was an established bank, it had a relationship with the FSA, staff, and ratings from two agencies. NBNK had none of these … we gave them five opportunities to bid. We couldn’t have done any more. Overall, the NBNK bid was slightly lower in capital terms.”

The letter that NBNK sent to the Lloyds board warned that Co-op could “overgear itself and leave it financially vulnerable” if it tried to buy the TSB business from Lloyds. It detailed concerns that IT systems at Co-op were “in disarray”, that there were “continued delays” integrating Britannia Building Society and that the bank had a “weak capital structure”.

Bischoff confirmed that Lloyds received the letter but still felt at the time that Co-op represented the better bid.

The failure of the Co-op deal may benefit the taxpayer owners of Lloyds, said Horta-Osório. The separate flotation of TSB will cost Lloyds £1.6bn, he said, but the improvement in equity markets since the deal with Co-op means the prospect for the flotation is now much better. “The taxpayer might come out ahead.”

Article source: http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/uk/rss/~3/tnD0jqMdO-8/story01.htm

A survivor of the Enniskillen atrocity has challenged the Libyan prime ministerto compensate victims killed by IRA bombs that were supplied by the late dictator Colonel Gaddafi.

Peter Robinson, the first minister of Northern Ireland, handed over a letter to Libya’s premier Ali Zeidan, who was attending the G8 summit in Lough Earne, from Stephen Gault, who was badly injured in the Remembrance Sunday massacre.

The Gaddafi regime supplied the Semtex explosive used in the IRA bomb that devastated the Co. Fermanagh town killing 11 people on Remembrance Sunday. A twelfth victim died after spending 13 years in a coma.

Gault wrote that he was disappointed that Zeidan would not be meeting with victims’ groups, on a he visit he said was a “momentous occasion in our country’s history.”

Libya supplied several tonnes of weapons to the Provisional IRA in the 1980s as “revenge” for Margaret Thatcher’s support for the US bombing of Libya in 1986.

Libyan logistical support for the Provisionals included anti-aircraft guns, flame-throwers, rockets, Soviet-made grenades as well as enough rifles to arm at least two infantry battalions.

However, Gaddafi’s supply of Semtex was his most significant “gift” to PIRA and the explosive was later used to set off many of the huge devices that devastated parts of London in places like Bishop’s Gate and Canary Wharf.

Gaddafi’s regime first started supplying PIRA with weapons back in the early 1970s when republican veteran and head of Sinn Fein’s finances Joe Cahill was caputed on the “Marita Ann” ship which was packed with Libyan weapons. But in the 1990s Gaddafi tried to reach out to the UK and rebuild relations. His government via the United Nations provided an entire inventory of everything the regime had given the IRA in the 1980s.

In a letter to the Libyan leader, Gault called on the premier to give his “immediate attention” to “legacy issues which, if unresolved, will mean that relationships … can never be as close as they have the potential to be.”

His letter went on: “For our part as families we are keen to support the efforts of the new Libyan regime, and we rejoice that a warmonger and tyrant is no longer at the helm of your country and that a democratic process is on the cusp of being born.”

A Downing Street spokeswoman would not confirm whether the two prime ministers would discuss the issue of compensation at their meeting, The spokeswoman said: “We are in touch with the Libyan regime about these legacy issues and these conversations happen at the highest level on both sides.”

A number of victims of IRA violence during the Troubles have launched legal actions against the Libyan government for compensation, on the grounds that the Semtex used in a number of high profile bomb attacks had been supplied by the former Gaddafi regime. They include victims of the Harrods explosion including a U.S. citizen caught in the IRA bomb attack in Knightsbride and other victims of other atrocities both in England and Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

Sean Henry, manager of the Clinton Centre, a reconciliation initiative built on the site of the 1987 bombing next to Enniskillen’s war memorial, also welcomed Ali Zeitan’s visit. “Anything that sees people talking about a better future has to be positive. Talking is the only solution.” He added that he would welcome an opportunity to strengthen links between Northern Ireland and Libya, as two countries emerging from violent histories.

Article source: http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/uk/rss/~3/fn6yjxKagbA/story01.htm

In the late 18th century the philosopher Jeremy Bentham developed a new type of institutional establishment which had a singular advantage over its predecessors: it allowed the authorities to observe inmates without their being able to tell in any particular moment whether or not they were being watched. The name given to this new architectural form of state control was Panopticon, literally meaning “watch all”.

In our modern digital world the bricks and mortar of Bentham’s Panopticon have been replaced by a network of cyber-surveillance systems. Now the inmates are not incarcerated criminals or the unhappy occupants of the asylums but potentially everyone on the planet, or at least anyone who has actively embraced the internet. Certainly, that is what the revelations about Prism seem to suggest. But is the deployment of such all-encompassing and apparently indiscriminate surveillance systems itself lawful? Is this something which as a matter of law we are obliged to tolerate, despite its ostensibly chilling effect on civil liberties?

Answering those questions from the perspective of our domestic law is not easy. This is not least because the law governing the use of surveillance by the state in the UK is complex, and still relatively untested. Those who have dipped their toes into the murky world of surveillance law will know there are typically three legal regimes which have to be considered, all of which focus to a greater or lesser extent on the concept of personal privacy.

First, there is Article 8 of the European convention on human rights, incorporated into domestic law through provisions in the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 8 recognises that all human beings enjoy a fundamental right to privacy. This right certainly extends to an individual’s private online activities. A state agency that snoops on an individual’s private e-activities will be acting unlawfully for the purposes of Article 8 unless the interference with privacy rights can be justified.

An interference will be justified only if it is both in accordance with the law and necessary in order to serve certain specified legitimate aims, including the aims of preserving national security, public safety or economic wellbeing. Importantly, an interference with privacy rights will not be lawful for Article 8 purposes if it is disproportionate. Put simply, the state cannot lawfully use a surveillance sledgehammer to crack a small albeit socially offensive nut.

Second, there is the Data Protection Act 1998, derived from the European data protection directive. This is a fairly intricate enactment that embodies a number of detailed rules relating to the circumstances in which personal data – including not only written information but also photographs, voice recordings and other recorded data – may lawfully be processed. The conceptual spinal cord on which the rules hang is that personal data must be managed in a way that avoids excessive infringements of privacy rights. In that sense, the effects of the Data Protection Act are similar to those of Article 8. The data protection rules will certainly provisionally apply to any personal data which may be obtained by the UK government from a foreign state, and also to any the government may itself wish to transfer abroad.

However, critically, the rules are effectively disapplied in any case where the government certifies that this is necessary for the purposes of safeguarding national security. The scope for challenging a national security certificate is very limited. Perhaps even more significantly, the affected individuals will only be able to contemplate a challenge if they know the state has disapplied the rules in their case. The difficulty here is that the disapplication of the rules may itself result in a situation where individuals are kept in the dark about what is happening to their data.

Third, there is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa). This fiendishly complex enactment is essentially intended to set out the circumstances in which secret surveillance activities undertaken by the state must be treated as lawful. Thus, for example, it sets out the circumstances in which individuals may lawfully be subject to surveillance (like using surveillance devices or covert human intelligence sources). It is clear that Ripa was enacted above all in order to ensure that the state was not using the veil of secrecy to conduct surveillance activities which unjustly interfered with the privacy rights of citizens.

But a fundamental difficulty with Ripa, as with the Data Protection Act, is that it is difficult to detect when abuses are taking place. The secret nature of the surveillance being undertaken means that the subjects of the surveillance are themselves not in a position to hold the relevant authorities to account.

Standing back from the detail, two things become clear. First, as a matter of domestic law, any surveillance system deployed by the state must operate in a proportionate manner. It is hard to see how any surveillance system that enabled the state indiscriminately to capture data relating to millions of law-abiding citizens could ever satisfy the requirements of Article 8. Second, it is a fundamental precondition to the exercise of legal rights that individuals know whether their rights have been infringed. Keeping the public in a state of ignorance about the very existence of super-surveillance systems is constitutionally offensive.

Even if there are good reasons why individual operations must remain secret in the national interest, there surely can be no justification for keeping people in the dark about dramatic expansions in the surveillance state. If super-surveillance systems are as all-encompassing and indiscriminate as the revelations about Prism tend to suggest, then all the more reason why these new modes of state watchfulness should be subject to robust scrutiny by both the public and the courts.

Of course we could simply sit back and accept the assurances given to us by our political leaders that the state can be relied upon to regulate itself, that it will scrupulously turn its attentions only to those who clearly seek to threaten our comfortable existence. But such a trusting, laissez-faire attitude is inherently naive. Our liberty as citizens depends very substantially on our ability to safeguard ourselves against arbitrary interference and excessive control by the state. If we abnegate our own responsibility to watch over the state’s burgeoning surveillance activities, the price we will pay is an inevitable loss of personal liberty in the face of an increasingly data-bloated and overweening state.

Article source: http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/uk/rss/~3/wCEuEYZ7Li4/story01.htm

Don’t worry, summer is on its way – but you might have to wait until 2023.

As the prospect of another gloomy Glastonbury and wet Wimbledon looms, leading climate scientists have warned that the UK could be set for a further five to 10 years of washout summers.

The grim forecast was delivered after an unprecedented gathering of scientists and meteorologists at the Met Office in Exeter to debate the range of possible causes for Europe’s “unusual seasonal weather” over recent years, a sequence that has lasted since 2007.

Many will have hoped for news of sunnier times ahead. But after experts brainstormed through the day they delivered the shock finding that the UK could be in the middle of a 10-20 year “cycle” of wet summers. The last six out of seven summers in the UK have seen below-average temperatures and sunshine, and above-average rainfall.

Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre and professor of meteorology at the University of Reading, stressed that the finding was not an official long-term forecast and does not automatically mean the UK will now have a further decade of wet summers. But, he said, the scientists’ conclusion was that the chances of this occurring are now higher than they first thought.

“Predicting when this cycle will end is hard,” said Belcher, who led the meeting of 25 scientists. “We have seen similar patterns before – in the 1950s and the 1880s – and we have hints that we are coming towards the end of this current cycle. However, it might continue for the next five to 10 years. There is a higher probability of wet summers continuing. But it’s very early days in trying to understand why this is happening.”

The scientists must now address what “dynamical drivers” are causing this cycle, Belcher said. The meeting debated a range of possible interconnected reasons for the unusual weather of recent years, including this year’s cold spring and the freezing winter of 2010/11. The most likely cause for the wet summers, he said, was the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation, or AMO, a natural pattern of long-term changes to ocean currents.

Other candidate causes that could be “loading the dice”, as Belcher described it, include a shift in the jet stream, solar variability and fast-retreating Arctic sea ice. Aggravating all of these factors could be the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere.

Dr James Screen, who studies how melting sea ice impacts on the jet stream at the University of Exeter, said: “There has been a lot of talk about declining Arctic sea ice playing a role in our weather patterns, but really that’s just one aspect of changes in the Arctic climate – which has seen rapid warming compared to other parts of the world. Those changes mean there is less of a difference in temperature between the Arctic and tropics, which could impact the position of the jet stream.”

The scientists also debated how melting sea ice should be better incorporated into climate models, as well as how observational data – for example, deep-ocean temperatures – could be improved to help their understanding of the potential relationship between climate change and the recent run of inclement weather and record-breaking extremes.

Len Shaffrey, a climate modeller based at the University of Reading who is also currently investigating possible links between Arctic sea ice retreat and European weather, said: “There are some fascinating science questions emerging about the influences on our weather, for example, from natural variations in ocean temperature. There is also some evidence that the record low amounts of Arctic sea ice have influenced patterns of European and British weather, but this evidence is not yet conclusive either way.”

The scientific debate about the role of the jet stream – the fast “river” of meandering, 10km-high air which greatly determines UK weather – is intensifying. This week researchers from the University of Sheffield published a study in the International Journal of Climatology showing how “unusual changes” to the jet stream caused the “exceptional” melting of the Greenland ice sheet during the summer of 2012. Scientists say they must now determine what is causing these “displacements”, as they are known, in the jet stream.

Tourist bosses were trying to find silver linings. David Leslie, a spokesman for the tourism agency Visit Britain, said people did not come to the UK for the weather alone. “The weather here is as unpredictable as anywhere else,” he added.

“The days of the UK being seen as a foggy, wet destination have passed. Hot, cold or mildly pleasant, the weather is not a deterrent for overseas visitors coming here to enjoy Britain’s tourism offering, which remains the best in the world.”

Article source: http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/uk/rss/~3/owfG6mL3PXc/story01.htm

Ministers have announced proposals to tighten up the regulation of undercover police following a succession of scandals over the infiltration of protest groups.

Damian Green, the minister for policing, told MPs on Tuesday that under the plans to be brought before parliament the police spies would be deployed only following approval from an outside body.

In a second reform, the use of the spies would only be authorised by chief constables. Previously, officers as junior as a superintendent had the power to deploy spies. The officers infiltrated political groups over many years.

The announcement of the new legislation follows a long-running Guardian investigation that revealed abuses by the spies in an undercover operation monitoring political campaigns since 1968.

The investigation showed that the undercover police routinely formed long-lasting, intimate, relationships with the activists they were sent to spy on. At least two police officers had children with activists while they worked undercover.

Police have also conceded that it was common practice for the agents to adopt the identities of dead children to develop their fake personas.

The controversy began two and a half years ago when the Guardian revealed details of the seven-year deployment of the police spy Mark Kennedy, who lived among climate change campaigners and who had several relationships with women upon whom he spied, one of which lasted six years.

Three senior judges later found that Kennedy might have acted as an agent provocateur.

Called before the home affairs select committee, Green said that any covert deployment lasting more than a year would need to be authorised by the office of surveillance commissioners, which monitors covert operations by state agencies.

The watchdog, led by the retired judge Sir Christopher Rose, has been criticised for failing to rigorously invigilate the use of many kinds of surveillance by government bodies, ranging from the police to local councils. Under the plans, the office would have to be notified before any operation was begun.

Green said: “Undercover police operations are vital in the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime. However, covert powers must be used proportionately and only when necessary.”

He said the new measures would “provide enhanced judicial oversight of all undercover police deployments”.

The proposed legislation brings into force proposals by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary last year, in a report into Kennedy, who infiltrated environmentalists for seven years.

Sir Denis O’Connor, then chief inspector of constabulary, said the level of authority needed to deploy an undercover police officer for several years in a protest group was less than was required to plant a listening device in the car of a drug dealer.

Under present rules, a warrant from the home secretary is required for a wire tap, but police can take on new identities, living in the homes of their targets, with nothing more than a signature from a superintendent.

O’Connor described the discrepancy as surprising, and said “serious consideration” should be given to legislation that would make undercover policing as accountable as other forms of intrusive surveillance.

Article source: http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/uk/rss/~3/BSzS6zmTuWE/story01.htm

Charles Saatchi has said he accepted a police caution for assaulting his wife, Nigella Lawson, because he thought it was “better than the alternative ,of this hanging over all of us for months”.

The multimillionaire art collector was cautioned on Monday by police investigating pictures that showed him repeatedly grabbing his wife by the throat in a restaurant.

He had earlier sought to downplay the images, claiming he had been “attempting to emphasise my point”.

The Metropolitan police said on Monday night that a 70-year-old man had voluntarily attended a central London police station in the afternoon and accepted a caution for assault after an investigation by the community support unit at Westminster.

Saatchi told the London Evening Standard – for which he is a columnist – on Tuesday: “Although Nigella made no complaint I volunteered to go to Charing Cross station and take a police caution after a discussion with my lawyer because I thought it was better than the alternative, of this hanging over all of us for months.”

An article published at the weekend in the Sunday People included several pictures showing Saatchi with his hand around Lawson’s neck as they sat outside Scott’s restaurant, in Mayfair.

On one occasion, he raised a second hand towards her throat and on another he pinched or grabbed her nose. She appeared upset and left the restaurant in tears.

Saatchi said the pictures showed a “playful tiff”. He told the Evening Standard on Monday that the pictures gave a “more drastic and violent impression” of the incident than had been the case.

“About a week ago we were sitting outside a restaurant having an intense debate about the children, and I held Nigella’s neck repeatedly while attempting to emphasise my point,” he said. “There was no grip, it was a playful tiff. The pictures are horrific but give a far more drastic and violent impression of what took place. Nigella’s tears were because we both hate arguing, not because she had been hurt.”

He said the pair had reconciled by the time they got home. “We had made up by the time we were home. The paparazzi were congregated outside our house after the story broke yesterday morning, so I told Nigella to take the kids off till the dust settled.”

Asked to comment on reports that Lawson had moved out of the family home, her spokesman said: “I can clarify that she has left the family home with her children.” Lawson has made no comment since the pictures emerged.

A witness described the incident as shocking. “I have no doubt she was scared,” the onlooker told the Sunday People. “It was horrific, really. She was very tearful and was constantly dabbing her eyes. Nigella was very, very upset.”

Lawson has previously described her husband as “an exploder”. In 2007 she said: “I’ll go quiet when he explodes, and then I am a nest of horrible festeringness.”

The pair were sitting outside Scott’s when the pictures were taken. Witnesses told the Sunday People Lawson had attempted to placate her husband, putting her hand on his wrist and at one point leaning over to kiss his cheek. The witness said: “She raised her voice and got angry but at the same time was trying to calm him down, almost like you would try to calm down a child. The kiss was a strange thing. He was being intimidating, threatening.”

Heather Harvey, from Eaves, a charity that supports victims of domestic violence, said some of the language being used was shocking.

“This is not a ‘row’; it is not a ‘tiff’: it is an incidence of domestic violence,” she said. “There is an unfortunate myth that domestic violence only happens to a certain type of person, that it happens in dysfunctional families where people have been drinking. But it happens in every social class and in every profession.

“It is shocking that this happened in a public place and yet no one intervened. This is not acceptable behaviour.”

Last year Saatchi, the co–founder of the Saatchi Saatchi advertising agency, who has an estimated fortune of £100m, was pictured pressing his hand over his wife’s mouth as they dined at Scott’s.

A spokesperson for Scott’s said: “The staff at Scott’s are aware of the allegations in the media today but did not see anything untoward happen within the restaurant. As this is now a police matter we cannot comment further.”

Article source: http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/uk/rss/~3/RwsEybE2AvI/story01.htm

A signed set of David Bowie‘s handwritten lyrics to The Jean Genie are scheduled to be auctioned next monthand are expected to sell for between £12,000 and £15,000.

Bowie wrote the lyrics in 1972, sending them as a gift to Neal Peters, the head of his American fan club. Consisting of 18 lines “in black ballpoint pen on cream lined notebook paper”, according to Bonhams, the pages are accompanied with “documents relating to … the work [Peter] did with the fan club during its infancy”.

In addition to these lyrics from Bowie’s Aladdin Sane album, the 3 July auction includes Robbie Williams’ lyrics to Deceiving Is Believing, the Small Faces’ Ivor Novello award and Marc Bolan’s old Afghan coat. There’s also a contract for Bowie’s concert at the Ealing College of Technology on 29 April 1969, “between the hours of 12:30 and 13:30″. Bowie and his then-guitarist, John Hutchinson, were to receive a payment “of Twelve (12) pounds”.

There’s even something for creepy Rolling Stones fans or DNA-hungry mad scientists: one of Mick Jagger’s ex-girlfriends is selling a lock of his hair. Offering a 50-year-old parcel of “washed and trimmed” brown hair, Chrissie Shrimpton hopes to raise around £2,000 for the Changing Faces charity. She claims her grandmother tucked it away, unbeknownst to her, while she and Jagger were visiting.

In 2011, one of John Lennon’s cavity-ridden molars was sold at auction in Stockport. The aged tooth went to a Canadian dentist, who paid £19,500.

Article source: http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/uk/rss/~3/U2OzDTBavD0/story01.htm