Fred Drummond, director of the Scottish branch of the Evangelical Alliance, notes that this hatred is “not representative of Evangelical Christians in the UK.”

During an interview with BBC Radio 2 Attenborough was asked why he did not credit God in his shows, he replied saying how he always remembers a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way. “I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator,” Attenborough said.

Attenborough had previously criticized schools for teaching creationism alongside evolution. He said it was “terrible” when the two were taught as equal, He added “Evolution is not a theory, it’s a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066.”

Attenborough joined the BBC in 1952 and created several series on the animal kingdom. His most recent documentary, a series about Charles Darwin and evolution, is due to be broadcast in the UK at the beginning of February.

• British broadcaster Sir David Attenborough receives hate mail from creationists
• “Attenborough ‘received hate mail’“. BBC News Online, January 27, 2009
• Craig Brown “Burn in Hell, Christians tell David Attenborough“. The Scotsman, January 27, 2009
• Russell Grigg “Sir David Attenborough: so much to live for; nothing to die for!“. Creation Ministries International, June 20, 2008

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

The confusion is said to arise from a new prosecution schedule for possession of the substance. Offenders will receive a warning for a first offense, an £80 immediate fine for a second offense and arrest and court proceedings for a third. This differs from the system in place for other Class B substances. However, the new system has not yet gone before the British parliament and will not be enforced until Wednesday, with the reclassification taking place today.

The Magistrates’ Association have argued that the new process had penalty rates lower than other Class B drugs and that the decision to take prosecutions away from the courts until a third offence sent out the wrong message to potential users.

The deputy chair of the Association, John Fassenfelt, told the BBC that the new system suggested to young people that cannabis was not as bad as other Class B drugs. “It’s a dual justice system”, he said. “If you smoke or take another Class B drug you’ll be brought to court, if you take cannabis you’ll be given a fine. Where’s the justice in that?”

Cannabis was a Class B substance until 2004, when it was reclassified to the more lenient Class C after a campaign that began in 1979. Mental health campaigners have since pushed for a return to Class B, and the government enacted this change today.

A cross-media advertising campaign will launch next month to explain the changes, at a cost of £2.2 million. Class A substances include ecstasy, LSD, cocaine, heroin and crack. Class B now includes amphetamines and cannabis. Class C now includes tranquilizers, GHB and the horse tranquilizer Ketamine.

• Confusion over British cannabis status
• “Cannabis law change ‘illogical’“. BBC News, January 26, 2009
• “Fine-free period for cannabis users“. The Press Association, January 26, 2009
• Richard Ford “Cannabis becomes Class B drug today, but no spot fines yet“. The Times, January 26, 2009

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

Britain’s economy shrank by 1.5 per cent in the last quarter of 2008, largest GDP fall since 1980.

The UK’s Gross Domestic Product shrank by 0.6% in the third quarter of 2008; this was followed by a 1.5% contraction in the following quarter. “The increased rate of decline in output was due to weaker services and production industries output,” commented the Office for National Statistics in a statement released today.

“Manufacturing output made the largest contribution to the slowdown, falling by 4.6 per cent compared with a 1.6 per cent decrease in the previous quarter,” the Office continued. Agriculture, fishing and forestry were the only factors not to fall between the last two quarters.

UK shadow chancellor George Osborne said that “I think we are facing an exceptionally difficult time and unfortunately the figures that have just come out today confirm this is now going to be the worst recession for a generation.” Bank of England Governor Mervyn King had previusly commented that he felt there would be a recession until at least the first half of 2009, accompanied by “further marked falls in output”.

The UK joins a long list of countries in recession, including Germany, Italy, Singapore and the United States. The current global financial crisis was triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis in the US.

• UK enters recession
• Britain on the brink of an economic depression, say experts
• UK falls into recession first time in 18 yrs
• Britain Officially In Recession

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

This move, along other tax cuts, is going to require the government to increase borrowing to record levels, according to experts cited by BBC News.
Gordon Brown: “I don’t see this as a gamble, I see this as necessary, responsible action, that any sensible government would want to take.”
Image: Andy Mettler.

Gordon Brown, the UK Prime Minister, has stated, “I don’t see this as a gamble, I see this as necessary, responsible action, that any sensible government would want to take.”

“Those people who say do nothing now, would leave people, as in the 1980s and 1990s, without hope that their mortgage problems could be sorted out, or their jobs problems could be sorted out,” he continued in a discussion on BBC television programme “The Politics Show”. “It would be lacking in compassion, as well as irresponsible, in my view.”

David Cameron, the leader of the opposition, has expressed his concern over the move. “I think people are going to be shocked tomorrow [Today] when they see the extent of government borrowing,” he said yesterday, before the move was official. “Maybe £80bn this year, before the recession’s even properly started, and possibly over £100bn next year. And next year that is over £4,000 extra for every family in the country.”

“So I do have a real concern about a government going on a borrowing binge that even they are now admitting is going to lead to much higher taxes later.”

In his statement announcing the move, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that the national debt will go up from 2.8% to 4.4% over the next year, although he stated that these changes were necessary to avoid a recession.

The move, which will come into effect next Monday, will last until the end of next year, and Darling stated that it will cost the government 12.5 billion GBP. This was announced as part of the 2008 pre-budget report.

Vince Cable, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, also commented on the tax cut. “A big tax cut’s desirable, that’s certainly the case. And a VAT cut would act very quickly, which is positive,” he stated. “But we prefer a different approach which is more targeted on people who really need it. And we believe that people on low incomes, low wages should get an income tax cut – lifting thresholds or reducing the rate. And that’s a much better way of concentrating resources where it needs it.”

15% percent is the lowest rate of VAT Permitted by the European Union.

1,2

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

Mason asked the operator not to send an Asian cab driver. She said, “A guy with a turban on is going to freak her out.” After the operator refused Mason snapped back claiming, “You’ve managed it before.” She then paused to address the audience and put another song on.

The original female operator had passed the call over to another operator. Mason then accused the first of having “a bad attitude”, and said, “I work at the BBC. I’m far from racist and that uneducated woman has no right to call me one.” The call then ended but she called back to complain.

The female operator who took the call was also fired from her job for illegally recording the call.

A statement from the taxi firm stated that “We confirm that a telephone call from Radio Bristol presenter Sam Mason to the company was illegally recorded by an employee. That employee was dismissed for similar offences on 3 November.”

A copy of the call was sent to British tabloid The Sun, which broke the story on Tuesday. The Sun informed the BBC.

A BBC spokesman said: “Although Sam Mason’s remarks were not made on-air, her comments were completely unacceptable and, for that reason, she has been informed that she will no longer be working for the BBC with immediate effect.”

According to BBC News, Mason, who worked at the station for only six weeks, was unavailable for comment.

The incident comes just weeks after the Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross prank call scandal involving Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs.

1,2

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown says Iceland should pay out up to €20,887 (£16,448) of UK investors’ money in the banks, particularly Icesave, an online company owned by Landsbanki which had around 300,000 accounts owned by UK customers. It will cost an estimated 2.4 billion pounds to compensate them, and it looks likely the UK will foot that bill.

Alexander Downing, the U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer, has said that individuals with accounts will see their money again but other accounts are not guaranteed – leaving governmental, corporate and charitable deposits at risk of being lost. UK local authorities could lose £799 million.

“The prime minister made clear the behavior of the Icelandic authorities had been unacceptable, and we had found it very difficult to get information from them,” said Michael Ellam, a spokesperson for Brown. A delegation has been sent to Reykjavik from the UK to try and solve the dispute amicably.

However, fears that the crisis may escalate have led to the pound becoming heavily devalued. The pound hit its lowest level for five years versus the US dollar after Brown threatened to freeze the assets of all Icelandic companies in the UK, which employ around 100,000 people.

The last time the two nations had a dispute, dubbed the Cod Wars, was in the 1970s. Iceland declared an exclusive fishing zone and began to cut the nets of British trawlers entering the area. That dispute came to a head in 1976 when a UK naval vessel with nuclear arms rammed an Icelandic ship that had been cutting nets. After this a compromise was reached to allow a limited number of British ships in the area.

attribution 1,2

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

The script was released by The National Archives, and it was discussed during the years from 1973 to 1975, as an act of preparation for a nuclear attack. This increased concern occurred due to the ongoing Cold War.

The script started by saying “This is the Wartime Broadcasting Service. This country has been attacked with nuclear weapons. Communications have been severely disrupted, and the number of casualties and the extent of the damage are not yet known. We shall bring you further information as soon as possible. Meanwhile, stay tuned to this wavelength, stay calm and stay in your own homes.” It emphasised people should not leave their homes: “Remember there is nothing to be gained by trying to get away. By leaving your homes you could be exposing yourselves to greater danger.”

“If you leave, you may find yourself without food, without water, without accommodation and without protection. Radioactive fall-out, which follows a nuclear explosion, is many times more dangerous if you are directly exposed to it in the open. Roofs and walls offer substantial protection. The safest place is indoors.”

The script continued by telling citizens to “make sure gas and other fuel supplies are turned off and that all fires are extinguished,” before telling the listener to “use your water only for essential drinking and cooking purposes.”

“Make your food stocks last: ration your supply, because it may have to last for 14 days or more,” continued the script. “If you live in an area where a fall-out warning has been given, stay in your fall-out room until you are told it is safe to come out.”

The script finishes people by telling people to turn off their radio to conserve energy.

The documents were released under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, and it also said that all reports should be given out in an authoritative and comforting tone. It also contains letters from the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications which describe how the use of a familiar voice will assure listeners that the BBC has not been obliterated.

PRIMARY SOURCE:
1970s BBC TRANSCRIPT TO BE USED IN THE EVENT OF A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON THE UK

This is the Wartime Broadcasting Service. This country has been attacked with
nuclear weapons. Communications have been severely disrupted, and the number of
casualties and the extent of the damage are not yet known. We shall bring you
further information as soon as possible. Meanwhile, stay tuned to this
wavelength, stay calm and stay in your own homes.
Remember there is nothing to be gained by trying to get away. By leaving your
homes you could be exposing yourselves to greater danger.
If you leave, you may find yourself without food, without water, without accommodation and
without protection. Radioactive fall-out, which follows a nuclear explosion, is many
times more dangerous if you are directly exposed to it in the open. Roofs and
walls offer substantial protection. The safest place is indoors.
Make sure gas and other fuel supplies are turned off and that all fires are
extinguished. If mains water is available, this can be used for fire-fighting.
You should also refill all your containers for drinking water after the fires
have been put out, because the mains water supply may not be available for very
long.

Water must not be used for flushing lavatories: until you are told that
lavatories may be used again, other toilet arrangements must be made. Use your
water only for essential drinking and cooking purposes. Water means life. Don’t
waste it.

Make your food stocks last: ration your supply, because it may have to last for
14 days or more. If you have fresh food in the house, use this first to avoid
wasting it: food in tins will keep.
If you live in an area where a fall-out warning has been given, stay in your
fall-out room until you are told it is safe to come out. When the immediate
danger has passed the sirens will sound a steady note. The “all clear” message
will also be given on this wavelength. If you leave the fall-out room to go to
the lavatory or replenish food or water supplies, do not remain outside the room
for a minute longer than is necessary.

Do not, in any circumstances, go outside the house. Radioactive fall-out can kill. You cannot
see it or feel it, but it is there. If you go outside, you will bring danger to your family and you
may die. Stay in your fall-out room until you are told it is safe to come out or you
hear the “all clear” on the sirens.

Here are the main points again:

Stay in your own homes, and if you live in an area where a fall-out warning has
been given stay in your fall-out room, until you are told it is safe to come
out. The message that the immediate danger has passed will be given by the
sirens and repeated on this wavelength. Make sure that the gas and all fuel
supplies are turned off and that all fires are extinguished.

Water must be rationed, and used only for essential drinking and cooking
purposes. It must not be used for flushing lavatories. Ration your food supply:
it may have to last for 14 days or more.

We shall repeat this broadcast in two hours’ time. Stay tuned to this
wavelength, but switch your radios off now to save your batteries until we come
on the air again. That is the end of this broadcast.

attribution 1,2

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

A backlash from global warming alarmists was to be expected. Someone was breaking their strangle-hold on telling the public what to believe. Someone was actually engaging them in public debate, without their permission or editorial control, and doing it well. In contrast to Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” (sic), The Great Global Warming Swindle featured interviews with real scientists and provided a more realistic analysis of data to back their claims. The alarmists’ claims that climate change is driven by human activity and that we’re headed for a major crisis were a fraud.

The alarmist camp filed 265 complaints with the UK regulatory agency for communications, Ofcom, plus a 176 page “group complaint” alleging 137 breaches (later reduced to 67) of the Ofcom code. Ofcom launched a 15 month investigation. In recent days, rumors have circulated that Ofcom would rule in favor of alarmists, “censuring” Channel 4, issuing a crushing blow to the further possibility of regulated media debate on the subject in the UK.

In their ruling however, Ofcom stated that Channel 4 was “on balance” and cleared it of “materially misleading the audience so as to cause harm or offence.”

The alarmists began the spin campaign immediately, accusing the regulator of letting the broadcaster off the hook “on a technicality.” Yes indeed, and a rather important technicality at that. People, including regulated broadcasters, have the right to disagree and to present evidence and argument even against the pseudo-religious rants of global warming alarmists. It’s a free speech thing. It makes no difference that the alarmists have invested heavily in their own propaganda campaign, gained the backing of influential politicians by promoting higher taxes, seated a committee at the UN, push their agenda with politically controlled research funding, secure corporate backing with legislative proposals that would increase profits at the expense of consumers, or that it seemed absolute control was within their grasp. In fact, those are all very strong reasons for open public debate.

Many of the blind followers in the alarmist camp will not understand any of the discussion that follows this ruling, including this opinion piece. The Great Global Warming Swindle is not a pseudo-bible for “deniers.” It was and still is, as Channel 4 claims, “a useful contribution to a timely debate.”

Those of us not aiming to secure control for the alarmist camp will, for example, possibly not pay much attention to some parts of Ofcom’s commentary. For example; Ofcom found that Sir David King, the government’s former chief scientist, had been misrepresented and that the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Carl Wunsch, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had been treated unfairly.

If individuals are treated unfairly in a broadcast, then let justice prevail. Individual justice is not unimportant. But let’s be fair and balanced ourselves. These rulings on individual fairness rest on the fact that the program did not provide the opportunity to respond, and that they misquoted. A complaint about stating the fact that the IPCC’s first report in 1990 falsely predicted “climatic disaster” was thrown out. Ofcom said, even without the opportunity for the IPCC to respond, this was “not unreasonable.” Of course it’s not unreasonable. Let me say it again: The Nobel prize-winning IPCC falsely predicted “climate disaster.” It’s an important fact that the public should know. This is what the debate is about. The IPCC was, and still is, wrong.

And what if the alarmists have a nitpick or two to rant about? It doesn’t decide the question that alarmists raise; whether humans are causing catastrophic global warming. It doesn’t settle the critical question answered in Ofcom’s ruling; whether British broadcasters are allowed to challenge global warming alarmist orthodoxy. The primary result of the ruling is extraordinarily important. The debate is allowed. Let’s get it on!

For those wishing to review Ofcom’s adjudication of the complaints: Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue number 114, 21 July 2008

Share on digg

Santander said in a statement that “Santander and A&L announce that they have reached agreement on the terms of a recommended acquisition by Santander of A&L, which is to be effected by means of a scheme of arrangement under sections 895 to 899 of the Companies Act [2006].”

Sections 895 to 899 of the Companies Act 2006 focus on, among other things, the meeting of creditors and members and the duty of directors and trustees to provide information. Section 897 requires the company to “explain the effect of the compromise or arrangement” to the shareholders when an acquisition takes place.

In the statement released under the Companies Act, it is stated the the board of A&L considers the deal set by Santander to be ‘fair and reasonable.’

Shares in Alliance & Leicester increased by 50% when information about the deal was first made public earlier today.

Unions have expressed concerns over the takeover by the company which also owns UK based Abbey National. “Staff at A&L deserve to have answers about their future and we urge the company to be upfront about their intentions,” said Andy Kerr, spokesperson for the Communication Workers Union.

BACKGROUND

The Companies Act 2006 (c.46) is a statute of the United Kingdom regulating companies within that jurisdiction. It received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006.

The Act also has the distinction of being the longest in British Parliamentary history: with 1,300 sections and covering nearly 700 pages, and containing no fewer than 15 schedules. (The index alone is 59 pages long.)

The Act will supersede the Companies Act 1985, although the 1985 Act remains in force until it is repealed in the final implementation order, currently scheduled for 1 October 2009. Several important parts of the Act have already been brought into force, including those on meetings and resolutions and on company directors and secretaries.

The Act provides a comprehensive code of company law for the United Kingdom, replacing almost every facet of the law in relation to companies. The key provisions are:

* the Act codifies certain existing common law principles, such as those relating to director’s duties.
* it implements the European Union’s Takeover and Transparency Obligations Directives
* it introduces various new provisions for private and public companies.
* it applies a single company law regime across the United Kingdom, replacing the two separate (if identical) systems for Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
* it otherwise amends or restates almost all of the Companies Act 1985 to varying degrees.[1]

The Bill for the Act was first introduced to Parliament as “the Company Law Reform Bill” and as intended to make wide ranging amendments of existing statutes. Lobbying from directors and the legal profession ensured that the Bill was changed into a consolidating Act, avoiding the need for cross-referencing between numerous statutes.

The reception of the legal professions in the United Kingdom to the Act has been slightly lukewarm.Concerns have been expressed that too much detail have been inserted to seek to cover every eventuality. Whereas a complete overhaul of company law was promised, the Act seems to very much leave the existing structure in place, and only simplify certain aspects at the margins. In other areas, it is said to have to have complicated and obfuscated previously settled law.

Implementation

The first and second Commencement Orders brought certain provisions into force in January 2007 and April 2007. An implementation timetable for the remainder of the Act was announced in February 2007, by Margaret Hodge, Minister for Industry and the Regions. It is expected to be brought into force in its entirety by October 2009.

The staggered timetable is intended to give companies sufficient time to prepare for the new regime under the Act, rather than implement the 1,300 sections of the Act on one day.

Another reason for the staggered implementation is that, despite the Act’s size, a great many sections provide for subsidiary legislation to be brought in by Secretary of State, which as yet has not been drafted. Although it is unclear how extensive these regulations will be, past experience suggests that they are likely to be equally voluminous.

Implemenation of the Act is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Board of directors

The Act replaces and codifies the principal common law and equitable duties of directors, but it does not purport to provide an exhaustive statement of their duties, and so it is likely that the common law duties will survive in a reduced form. Traditional common law notions of corporate benefit have been swept away, and the new emphasis is on corporate social responsibility. The seven codified duties are as follows:

1. to act within their powers – to abide by the terms of the company’s memorandum and articles of association and decisions made by the shareholders;
2. to promote the success of the company – directors must continue to act in a way that benefits the shareholders as a whole, but there is now an additional list of non-exhaustive factors which the director’s must have regard to. This had been one the most controversial aspect of the new legislation at the drafting stage. These factors are:
1. the long term consequences of decisions
2. the interests of employees
3. the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others
4. the impact on the community and the environment
5. the desire to maintain a reputation for high standards of business conduct
6. the need to act fairly as between members
3. to exercise independent judgment – directors must not fetter their discretion to act, other than pursuant to an agreement entered into by the company or in a way authorised by the company’s articles
4. to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence – this must be exercised to the standard expected of someone with both the general knowledge, skill and experience reasonably expected of a person carrying out the functions of the director (the objective test) and the actual knowledge, skill and experience of that particular director (the subjective test)
5. to avoid conflicts of interest – methods for authorising such conflicts by either board or shareholder approval are also to be introduced
6. not to accept benefits from third parties
7. to declare an interest in a proposed transaction with the company – there are to be carve outs for matters that are not likely to give rise to a conflict of interest, or which the directors are already aware of. There will be an additional statutory obligations to declare interests in relating to existing transactions.

Although the changes to director’s duties were the most widely publicised (and controversial) feature of the legislation, the Act also affects directors in various other ways.

* The shareholders’ ability to ratify any conduct of a director (including breach of duty, negligence, default or breach of trust) will be regulated by the statute (instead of common law, as was previously the case). Under the Act the law will change so that directors who are also shareholders will not be entitled to vote in relation to any ratification resolution.
* Existing restrictions on companies indemnifying directors against certain liabilities will be relaxed to permit indemnities by group companies to directors of corporate trustees and occupational pension schemes.
* The Act will give shareholders a statutory right to pursue claims against the directors for misfeasance on behalf of a company (a derivative action), although the shareholders will need the consent of the court to proceed with such a claim.
* Certain transactions between the company and its directors which were previously prohibted by law will become lawful subject to the approval of shareholders (for example, loans from the company to its directors)
* The Act will require at least one director on the board of the company to be a natural person, although corporate directors are still permitted.
* The current age restriction of 70 for directors of public companies will be abolished. A new minimum age of 16 will be introduced for all directors.
* Directors will have the option of providing Companies House with an address for service, which will in future enable their home addresses to be kept on a separate register to which access will be restricted.

General provisions

The Act contains various provisions which affects all companies irrespective of their particular status.

* Company formation – the procedure for incorporating companies will be modernised to facilitate incorporation over the Internet. The restrictions on one persons forming companies other than private companies will be abrogated.
* Constitutional documents – a company’s articles of association will become its main constitutional document, and the company’s memorandum will be treated as part of its articles. The Act will provide for a simplified set of model articles for private companies that are intended to be more reflective of the way that small companies operate, and will replace the existing Table A. Existing companies will be permitted to adopt the new model articles in whole or in part.
* Corporate capacity – under the new Act a company’s capacity will be unlimited unless its articles specifically provide otherwise, thus greatly reducing the applicability of the ultra vires doctrine to corporate law and removing the need for an excessively long objects clause in the Memorandum of Association.
* Execution of documents – Formalities for execution as a deed are to be further revised, so that a single director can execute a document as a deed on behalf of the company by a simple signature in the presence of a witness.
* Share capital – the requirement for an authorised share capital will be abolished. Companies will be able to redenominate their share capital from one currency to another without an order of the court.
* Distributions in kind – The Act addresses the current uncertainty in the law in relation to the transfer of non-cash assets by a company to a shareholder, and whether this should be treated as a distribution.[4]
* Shareholder meetings – shareholder meetings will be able to be held more quickly. Special resolutions will require only 14 days’ notice unless proposed at an AGM.
* Shareholder communications – companies will be able to communicate electronically with their shareholders or by website with the their shareholders by express agreement (which agreement can be obtained under the articles, or by the shareholder failing to indicate that they do not wish to communicate via the website, as well as by more conventional methods).
* Auditor’s liability – auditors will be permitted to limit their liability for claims in negligence, breach of trust or breach of duty so long as:
o the shareholders’ have approved the limitation in advance.
o the court considers the limitation of liability to be ‘fair and reasonable’ [5]

This change was made after intensive lobbying by the accounting profession in the United Kingdom.

Private company limited by shares

One of the more touted aspects of the new legislation will be the simplification of the corporate regime for small privately held companies. A number of the changes brought about by the Act apply only to private companies. Significant changes include:

* Company secretaries – a private company will no longer need to appoint a company secretary, but may do so if it wishes.
* Shareholders’ written resolutions – the requirement for unanimity in shareholders’ written resolutions will be abolished, and the required majority will be similar to that for shareholder meetings – a simple majority of the eligible shares for ordinary resolutions, or 75% for special resolutions.
* Abolition of AGMs – private companies will no longer be required to hold Annual General Meetings, although they can elect to do so in their articles if they wish.
* Short notice of meetings – private companies can convene meetings on short notice where consent is given by 90% in nominal value of shares carrying the right to vote.
* Allotment of shares – where private companies have only one class of shares, the directors will have unlimited authority to allot shares unless the articles otherwise provide.
* Financial assistance – the Act abolishes the prohibition on private companies providing financial assistance for the purchase of their own shares, and the related “whitewash” exemption procedure.
* Reduction of share capital – private companies will be able to reduce their share capital without the need to obtain a court order.
* Filing of accounts – the period in which accounts must be filed has been reduced from 10 months to 9 months from financial year end.

Public limited company

The Act also seeks to promote greater shareholder involvement, and a number of new requirements are introduced for public companies, some of the provisions of which only apply to companies whose shares are listed on the main board of the London Stock Exchange (but, importantly, not to companies whose shares are listed on AIM).

* Business review – the Act imposes additional requirements for companies listed on the main board of the LSE in their annual report and accounts. These now include:

1. main trends and factors likely to affect future development, performance and position of the business;
2. information on environmental matters, employees and social issues; and
3. information on contractual and other arrangements essential to the company’s business.

* AGM and accounts – main list companies will be required to hold their AGM and file accounts within 6 months of the end of the financial year. They will also be required to:

1. publish their annual report and accounts on their website;
2. disclose results of polled votes at general meetings on their website;
3. give certain minority shareholders the right to require independent scrutiny of any polled vote, the results of which must be published on the company’s website.

* Political donations and expenditure – the Act contains simplification and clarification to the existing provisions requiring shareholder approval for political donations and expenditure, and clarifies a number of grey areas (such as expenditure relating to trade unions).
* Enfranchising indirect investors – nominee shareholders of main list companies will be able to nominate persons whom they hold shares on behalf of to receive copies of company communications and annual reports and accounts. All companies will also be able to include provisions in their articles to identify some other party to exercise additional rights of the shareholder. This is to address the concern that shares in publicly listed companies are frequently held in an intermediaries name, which makes it more difficult for them to exercise their rights as shareholder.
* Voting by institutions – the Act empowers the government to introduce regulations in the future that would force institutions to disclose how they have voted. The government has indicated it will only introduce regulation after full consultation and if a voluntary disclosure scheme does not work.
* Paperless share transfers – the Act gives the government power to make regulations requiring (as well as permitting) paper-free holding and transferring of shares in main list companies. Some law firms have expressed reservations as to how paper-free holding and transfers would work in practice.
* Transparency Obligations Directive – the Act brings into force the European Directive imposing obligations on main list companies in relation to financial reporting, disclosure of major acquisitions or disposals of its shares and the dissemination of information about the company to its shareholders and the public generally. The Act gives the Financial Services Authority power to make rules to implement the requirements of the Directive, which would be implemented by way of changes to the existing Listing Rules and Disclosure Rules. The Act also introduces a statutory compensation scheme for misleading or inaccurate statements in reports.
* Takeovers – the EU Takeover Directive was implemented by interim regulations in the United Kingdom in May 2006. The Act extends the statutory basis for the regulations in relation to certain matters, such as the statutory footing of the Takeover Panel, and the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers. It also extended the “minority sweep up” provisions which were introduced by an amendment to the Companies Act 1985, and addresses certain practical problems which had arisen in relation to their operation.

source

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

source

GNU Free Documentation License.

Share on digg

The results of the survey — including the fact that 83 percent expect a disaster/terrorist attack — were released at a Homeland Defense Journal-Book Hill Partners briefing held at the National Press Club on Thursday.

Some the its findings mirror the results of a poll by the National Association of Chiefs of Police which revealed that almost 87 percent of our nation’s police commanders and security directors expect a catastrophic terrorist incident within the continental United States (2005 NACOP Poll).

“The purpose of the survey is to help set the priorities for homeland security as the next president and the next Congress take office,” said Don Dickson, publisher of the Journal.

“This will be the first time that any administration other than the Bush administration has taken charge of the Department of Homeland Security and its important responsibilities. As a result, this transition presents unique challenges,” Dixon added.

“While the economy and Iraq are dominating the headlines and the campaign at this moment, we cannot lose sight of the critical importance of homeland security. Historically, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have exhibited a tendency to strike around election and transition years. It is vital that the next administration – be it President Obama or President
McCain – be ready to defend our nation from the moment the oath of office is taken,” said Rob Housman, a partner with Book Hill Partners.

The survey results reflect the views of 122 homeland security professionals, of which 36 percent had ten or more years and 32 percent had five or more years experience in the field. Respondents came principally from private sector homeland security professionals, federal, state and local homeland security officials, and the military.

Key findings of the survey include:

– Over 83 percent of experts surveyed expected a major disaster of some kind in the United States within the next four years, within the term of the next president.

– Roughly 58 percent of respondents said that the most probable scenario for a major disaster was a natural disaster. More surprisingly almost 22 percent of experts said that the most probable scenario for a major disaster was a terrorist attack with a weapon of mass destruction (chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear specifically).

– Almost 72 percent of respondents expect major changes if Sen. Obama is the next president. In contrast, over 80 percent of respondents believed that homeland security policies under a McCain administration would be largely unchanged from those under the Bush administration.

– More than half of respondents (54 percent) said DHS should be maintained but reorganized; roughly 30 percent said the agency should be unchanged; and almost 15 percent said the agency should be split up.

— The next administration’s top four homeland security priorities should be border security, emergency response, development of medical counter-measures to weapons of mass destruction, and port security.

– Respondents said the most important expertise and experience for the next secretary of DHS are: managerial experience; military experience; and critical infrastructure experience. Respondents also placed a priority on intelligence and state-level homeland security experience.

“The real value of this survey is the breadth and depth of expertise represented in the results,” Dickson remarked.

“We believe that this is the first such survey of homeland security experts, and it certainly is the first one looking at the direction for homeland security under the next
administration,” Housman said.

“We hope that the results will inform and guide the policies of the next administration and Congress,” Housman added.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

   

Share on digg

Health Minister Ben Bradshaw described the party’s lost to the British National Party and to the Greens as a, “terrible lost,” and blamed the economic conditions such as rising food and fuel costs as factors that dampens the Labour Party’s appeal with the public.

Conservative Party leader David Cameroon countered Bradshaw’s opinion by saying, Mr. Brown was to blame for the economic distress. Cameroon cited the Prime Minister’s ten years of handling the economy as minister prior to assuming office when Tony Blair stepped down last year.

The by-elections in Henley was won by Tory John Howell with a majority of over 10,000 votes, defeating by a large margin the Liberal Democrats who were presumed to have a close edge of beating both Conservative and Labour. Labour threw in their support with Richard McKenzie who only garnered 3% of the votes behind the BNP and Greens.

Henley called for an election when its representative Boris Johnson was elected Lord Mayor of the City of London.

source

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

The job cuts were made as part of the process of moving the production of tobacco products to Northern Spain. In the United Kingdom, the Bristol factory is the only one that is completely closing, although there are significant job losses at other locations.

A spokesperson for Imperial Tobacco defended the move. “We are regrettably closing the cigar factory in Bristol – it’s a very regrettable step for us to take, but it is an industry which is under considerable pressure,” he said.

The Unite union has stated that they will fight the decision. Iain MacLean, a union spokesman, said that “it’s early days but we will be fighting for every job and there will be absolutely no acceptance of any compulsory redundancies.”

source

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

The protest, called for by the Stop the War Coalition, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the British Muslim Initiative, was attended by 2000 people according to Scotland Yard, and had previously been banned from marching past Downing Street. As they approached the barrier police had erected to block off access to Whitehall, police officers defended the blockade wielding batons and arresting 25 protesters.

While Deputy assistant commissioner to the Metropolitan Police Service, Chris Allison, criticized the protests as “deplorable” acts that could not “be described as lawful demonstration”, a Stop the War Coalition member put the blame on the police, stating that there would have been no violence at all had the demonstration be allowed to past the Prime Minister’s residence.

An earlier demonstration near Windsor Castle, where Bush met with Queen Elizabeth for afternoon tea, stayed peaceful. On Monday, Bush will join Gordon Brown in talks with Peter Robinson, the first minister of Northern Ireland, in Belfast, where further protests are announced.

source

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

The ride took a route past many well known landmarks in London, starting from Hyde Park Corner then going via locations including Trafalgar Square, the Houses of Parliament, the London Eye, Covent Garden, Oxford Street, the United States embassy and returning to Hyde Park Corner, finishing at the Wellington Arch.

Described as a clothing-optional bike ride, participants ranged from being fully clothed to full nudity and were of a broad range of ages and ethnicities. Nudity is encouraged but is not mandatory.

Whilst public nudity in itself isn’t illegal in the United Kingdom, indecent exposure is an offence where the person exposes their genitals and “intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress” and as such participants were unlikely to be at risk of arrest. Police officers riding bikes worked to facilitate the passage of the cyclists through the city whilst minimising disruption.

source

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Image: Adam Brookes.

Image lcensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Share on digg

Large numbers of people have visited the museum in the last few days to visit the dinosaur, which is believed to have died in a flood. The remains of the dinosaur’s final meal are visible near the neck of the animal.

The children of the dinosaur were also recovered in Dorset, and they have been included in the display at the Bristol museum.

The scelidosaurus was a herbivorous dinosaur that lived in the Jurassic period, almost 200 million years ago.

source

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

Emily would not have suffered the loss of her father for the last five years, or the vision in her right eye, if it weren’t for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA.) And people like Barbara Grieg of the U.S. State Department who see it as an excuse for misandry and a license for lawlessness.

Hindle, a U.K. citizen met and fell in love with American Sheila Fuith while in New York. When she moved to the U.K. in 2001 she hadn’t mentioned the husband and daughters she’d abandoned. Emily was born in the U.K. on March 1, 2002. At 5-months-old Emily was diagnosed with esotropia caused by amblyopia. She needed patching therapy, a patch worn a few hours each day, or she would lose sight in her right eye.

In February 2003 Fuith decided to leave Hindle and return to the U.S. She knew he would object to her taking Emily, so she did what many women in her position have done. She accused him of domestic violence and sexual abuse of children. Thanks to VAWA, she needed only to speak the words.

Fuith was taken in by a battered women’s shelter, and given free legal aid by the U.S. government. With no evidence and no due process, Barbara Grieg authorized the illegal abduction. The U.S. Embassy in London issued a passport for Emily without her father’s signature as required by law. The forged signature was not notarized, and had the wrong date.

After arriving in the U.S. Fuith stopped Emily’s therapy. She then tried to give Emily away in a “baby switch.” She placed Emily with the family of Leslie Merriam, a three time convicted pedophile in Wisconsin. Karl learned of this and contacted local law enforcement.

Fuith needed only to claim Karl was harassing her, and the baby switch wasn’t investigated. A call to Grieg confirmed that Hindle was “dangerous.” Captain Alan Osowski never looked at Fuith’s phone when she told him numbers from “harassing calls from Hindle.” But he wrote he had in his report.

This was just the beginning of Hindle’s harrowing five-year journey to protect his daughter. Fuith has moved Emily dozens of times through several different states. She’s filed over 100 false police reports. And Hindle has received death threats.

Two police investigations in the UK and three in the U.S. cleared Hindle of all allegations. Fuith was found guilty of coaching Emily and making false allegations. Hindle was given court-ordered reunification with Emily.

Hindle said, “Emily met her elder brother (Max) and sister (Elizabeth) for the first time in almost 3  years…as we walked into the resort hotel, Emily asked me ‘Is this my family ?‘”

They enjoyed these visits, evidenced by these photographs, until Fuith made another false allegation and disappeared. Emily was then listed as missing and endangered.

Knowing all of this, Grieg didn’t just harbor Fuith all these years. She interfered whenever Hindle needed a visa to attend custody hearings, arranged his improper arrest, imprisonment and deportation by the immigration department, and tried to set him up to be arrested for violence. She had officers hiding in bushes while her cronies harassed Hindle. And all the while, during her many lawless and reprehensible actions, she allowed Emily to go blind.

Fuith is still enjoying VAWA-funded legal representation. Recently there was a conference call between Fuith, Hindle, their attorneys and the State Department. During the call Fuith recanted every allegation she has made against Hindle. Even hearing this, the State Department refused to budge. The reason? The allegations the mother has made.

Sheila Fuith is clearly guilty, yet has not received any punishment. Karl Hindle is completely innocent, yet has not been able to see Emily or get custody. Now the State Department wants to send him back to London to apply for a new visa.

Hindle said recently, “I’ve been here for 5 weeks, yet Emily and I have not seen each other. The judge will not enforce his orders, and the mother maintains visitation must take place in Panama City, 350 miles away.  Emily and I last saw each other on May 28th, 2006!”  Hindle is now on his way back to the UK without seeing Emily.

Share on digg

The move which was described as “a complete surprise” was announced to reports outside Downing Street after the Speaker of the House refused to let the well known politician announce it in Westminster. The 59 year-old MP is well known in politics and had led the opposition against labour plans to length detention limits on suspected terrorists.

Davis has said that he will stand as a candidate in the by-election, which he claims he will use to promote civil liberties, saying “I will argue in this by-election against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government.” He also said the move was a “noble endeavour” to address British civil liberties.

Tory leader David Cameron, who had previously run against Davis in the race for election as the Conservative leader, said: “It was a personal decision, a decision he has made” and also that the move was “risky”.

source

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

According to the BBC, one of the documents, a seven-page report entitled “Al-Qaeda Vulnerabilities”, was classified “UK Top Secret” and had every page numbered and labeled “for UK/US/Canadian and Australian eyes only”. The other document, “Iraqi Security Forces: More or Less Challenged?”, had been commissioned by the Ministry of Defense, which the BBC’s security correspondent, Frank Gardner, described as being “damning” in parts. Both were produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee, a government organization designed to present information from several British intelligence services to ministers and senior officials.

The person believed to be responsible for the breach works for the Cabinet Office’s intelligence and security unit, which contributes to the Joint Intelligence Committee. He had authority to take classified documents out of the Cabinet Office, under strict security procedures. The Metropolitan Police are investigating the incident, which the Conservative Party’s security spokeswoman, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones called “the latest in a long line of serious breaches of security involving either the loss of data, documents or Government laptops”.

The Cabinet Office’s admission of the breach came on the same day the UK government voted on a resolution allowing authorities to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge.

source

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

Osbourne, famous for both his solo rock career and fronting the heavy metal band Black Sabbath, was hosting the show alongside wife Sharon and children Jack and Kelly. In an ensuing Star article titled “Ozzy Freak Show”, the 59-year old was portrayed as suffering from health problems that rendered his ability to host the show questionable.

The article claimed that he had collapsed twice before the show began, prompting the show’s organizers to enter emergency talks debating whether Osbourne was fit to continue as planned or instead should be withdrawn and hospitalized. It also reported that the singer had used an electric buggy to move around behind the scenes and had been designated a place to sit in case he felt tired. All of these allegations were found to be false.

At the settlement in London’s High Court, at which the Osbournes were not present, Kate Wilson, representing Express Newspapers, apologized for the article and accepted that it should never have been published. Express Newspapers owns the Daily Star.

Osbourne says that the money will go to his wife’s charity, the Sharon Osbourne Colon Cancer Program.

source

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg

The new ban prevents people from consuming, or carrying any alcoholic drinks while travelling on the London Underground. The restriction was announced by Boris Johnson soon after he became the new mayor of London.

Local police have said that the party, which was intended to just be an enjoyable evening, finished with an “unfortunate” ending. Several tube stations were shut due to the disruption caused by the large number of people; Liverpool Street, Euston, Euston Square, Aldgate, Gloucester Road and Baker Street were closed. The BBC has reported that some of the tube trains may have been damaged, despite a heavy police presence.

Jeroen Weimar, from Transport for London commented on the incidents.”We are encouraging our passengers to show a bit more respect and to be more considerate and involve other peoples’ views and other passengers views as they make their journeys,” he commented.”And clearly drinking alcohol can create a culture whereby people feel it’s okay to do that sort of thing, it’s okay to get more drunk when you’re travelling.”

source

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Share on digg