BB FANS

UK Big Brother Forums






Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 720 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 48  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Nov 07, 14:32 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
British girls guilty of Ghana drug smuggling


Rachel Williams in Accra and Peter Walker


Yasemin Vatansever, 16, leaves the high court in Accra, Ghana
Yasemin Vatansever, 16, covers her head with a sweater as she leaves the high court in Accra, Ghana in this July file photograph. Photograph: Olivier Asselin/AP


Two British teenage girls accused of trying to take 6kg of cocaine out of Ghana in laptop bags were today found guilty of drug smuggling.

Yasemin Vatansever and Yatunde Diya, both 16 and from north London, face up to three years in prison.

Following the juvenile court session - held behind closed doors - officials said sentencing had been deferred until December 5, ahead of a report being compiled by Ghanaian social services and British authorities.


The girls' lawyers also plan an appeal.

After the verdict, the teenagers were bundled into a waiting vehicle, their heads covered by green patterned scarves.

They were arrested on July 2 at Kotoka airport, in Accra, after narcotics officers found cocaine worth an estimated £300,000 sewn into the lining of the laptop bags they were carrying.

Throughout the case, the girls' families insisted they knew nothing about the drugs and had been set up by traffickers.

In a statement read outside the court by Sabine Zanker, of the group Fair Trials International, they said they were "deeply disturbed with the verdict delivered this morning".

"Yasemin and Yatunde are two extremely vulnerable young girls whose naivety was ruthlessly exploited by the men who lured them to Ghana and led them to this terrible fate," the statement said.

Despite leaks from prosecutors claiming the girls had both known what they were carrying, the families insisted neither had any knowledge about the drugs.

"Our daughters are not the criminal masterminds which the prosecuting authorities attempted to portray them as," the statement said.

The teenagers were tried under Ghana's progressive Juvenile Justice Act, meaning their trial had to be completed within six months and they can only be held on remand for three months.

According to Mark Ewuntomah, the deputy head of Ghana's narcotics control board, the girls arrived in the country on June 26 and spent a week at a hotel in the capital.

He said they told him their trip had been arranged by a north London man who had promised them an all expenses paid holiday and £3,000 apiece if they each brought a package back to the UK.

Two young Ghanaian men who met the girls on their arrival in Accra allegedly gave them two empty laptop bags and dropped them off at the airport on July 2.

Last month, Vatansever told Channel 4 News from prison: "There were basically two boys over here who gave us two bags. We never thought anything bad was inside ... they told us to go to the UK and drop it off to some boy at the airport.

"It was basically like a set-up. They didn't tell us nothing, we didn't think nothing, because basically we are innocent. We don't know nothing about this drugs and stuff, we don't know nothing."

In recent years, Ghana has become a key transit point for South American drug barons seeking to ship cocaine to Europe.

In 2005 and 2006, customs officials at Heathrow and Gatwick airports intercepted 400kg of cocaine from Ghana - more than from Nigeria, the traditional hub of drug smuggling in west Africa.
guardian


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Nov 07, 10:27 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Freedom for Imran


Cricket legend Imran Khan was yesterday released from jail in Pakistan - but has vowed to continue his hunger strike.

The rebel politician was one of thousands freed by President Musharraf after his opposition clampdown.

Imran, 54, was arrested last week and locked up on terrorism charges.

He has vowed to fast until he dies if necessary in protest at Musharraf's removal of senior judges.

After he began his hunger strike, ex-wife Jemima warned: "He plans to keep it up."

Supporters last night urged him to end the fast.
Mirror


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Nov 07, 10:56 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Failure to meet deadline brings fresh Commonwealth suspension




Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth yesterday, for the second time in eight years, after President Pervez Musharraf failed to meet a deadline for lifting emergency rule.

Gordon Brown welcomed the decision late last night in Kampala, Uganda saying the move was necessary and justified. He said Britain would work with the Commonwealth to see that the terms on which Pakistan could be readmitted were met.

The decision came after four hours of talks in Kampala at foreign minister level, with Britain and Canada leading the call for suspension with terms for readmittance. Some of Pakistan's fellow Asian countries, such as Malaysia, opposed. Smaller countries, including African ones, backed outright suspension.


Mr Brown added: "President Musharraf has said that he will take steps necessary to restore democracy. The Commonwealth is strongly of the view that he must do so. We will work with Pakistan and the Commonwealth to ensure Pakistan returns to its rightful position in the Commonwealth once the remaining steps are taken."

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, said the international community had to pressure Pakistan into holding free and fair elections. A British minister added: "We would have looked limp-wristed in the eyes of the world if we had not acted. Musharraf says he is making changes, but it is very clear that this is not a run up to free and fair elections."

Formally the Commonwealth secretary general, Don McKinnon, announced the committee "has suspended Pakistan from councils of the Commonwealth, pending restoration of democracy and rule of law in the country". "The state of emergency had not been lifted, the constitution and the independence of the judiciary not restored and fundamental rights and the rule of law remain curtailed," McKinnon said. Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth for five years after Musharraf seized power in 1999, but was readmitted on condition he gave up his uniform - a condition he has yet to meet.
guardian


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Nov 07, 10:59 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London


The lucky country?


The Australian prime minister, John Howard, has poured scorn on the idea of global warming. But now the trees are dying, the crops are failing and the rivers are drying up. As the country prepares to go to the polls, Julian Glover reports on the world's first climate change election

On an early summer's morning in northern Tasmania, the Tamar valley looks like an Australian slice of Tuscany. There are groves of walnut trees beside white-barked eucalyptus, a lavender farm, apricot orchards and small fields of olives. Vineyards run down to the river and fat black cattle graze the pasture. Yachts are anchored in the winding reaches of the tidal river. The Tamar seems a model of sustainable development - green and welcoming.

Except that the Australian government has just approved the building of one of the world's largest pulp mills in the middle of this scene. A 200-hectare (500-acre) polluting giant by the side of the Tamar river, the factory would accelerate - some say double - the already rapid pace of logging in the mountainous and verdant island state. Turned into woodchip and then exported as chlorine-bleached pulp, much of what remains of Tasmania's native forests may end up as cheap paper for the hungry markets of Asia.

This is not the first time that the island has found itself caught up in environmental conflict. The logging industry has long been a source of controversy as well as local jobs. The successful 1970s campaign to stop a dam being built on the wild Franklin river led to the birth of the world's first Green party. The Bell Bay pulp mill is now part of a much wider public debate over Australia's environmental future that is now shaping the country's politics.

Australia goes to the polls tomorrow in what is arguably a milestone in 21st-century history: the world's first climate-change election. It comes after a five-year drought that has seen some of the country's greatest rivers dry up and crops fail. A land that has grown rich over two centuries on the back of what seemed like unlimited space and resources - and which is booming through the shipping of coal and iron ore to fuel the furnace of China's economy - is confronting a far less comfortable reality of water shortages, failing crops and environmental collapse. But the logic of the new debate is emerging faster than the old politics can catch up. As the 21st-century wind changes, political faces are caught in 20th-century grimaces. There is a disconnect between national arguments and Saturday's election choices.

The story begins with Australia's conservative prime minister, the Liberal leader John Howard, the man who the polls say will be defeated tomorrow night - though Australians know there is a chance that the great survivor could pull off one last victory. His downfall, if it comes, will be symbolic for reasons that run well beyond climate change. An icon of global conservatism, he is the last of the Iraq warriors to seek re-election, after Tony Blair and George Bush. He stood alongside the United States in refusing to sign the 1997 Kyoto agreement. Howard poured scorn on the existence of climate change, though he has now been forced to change his mind. Australians can see for themselves that he was wrong.

"Salt is coming up out of the ground, trees are dying," says Geoffrey Cousins, a well-known Sydney businessman and former adviser to Howard who has now turned his efforts to stopping the pulp mill. "It is quite clear to anyone living in Sydney that rainfall patterns have changed, the pattern of storms is different. There has been a big shift in thinking and the mill became a concrete, readily understandable example of all of this, something we could actually do something about."

Facing Howard is the man who expects to become Australia's prime minister tomorrow night, the Labor party's leader, Kevin Rudd. A clever, bespectacled former bureaucrat from the tropical state of Queensland, he recently used his fluent Mandarin to chat to the Chinese premier Hu Jintao in front of the anglophile Howard - a humiliation that symbolised the way national priorities are shifting to Asia.

Yet Rudd has fought a highly restricted, personalised campaign, aping Howard more than opposing him on most issues. Friends - including Britain's former cabinet minister Alan Milburn - have turned Rudd into a brand: Kevin07. It is very reminiscent of New Labour. Rudd has fought on a handful of issues targeted at working families in suburban seats, especially the changes to employment law that were pushed through by Howard. Such caution has disappointed some supporters. Controversially, Rudd has also backed the construction of the Tasmanian mill - shaken by a Labor defeat in 2004, when the party promised to save the island's native forests in the last week of the campaign, only to be savaged on polling day.

But Rudd has been much bolder on climate change, making it a defining point of difference. He has promised to sign the Kyoto protocol as his first act of government - and the fact that the decade-old agreement is still a live issue in Australia is a sign of how far debate is behind Europe. For a car-addicted nation that was last week named as the world's biggest per-capita emitter of greenhouse gasses - Australians produce 27% more tonnes of carbon dioxide per head than Americans - it would be a significant moment.

"There is no doubt that over the past few years the impact of the drought has been to make voters personally experience what they see as a changing climate," says Lynton Crosby, the pollster and campaign strategist who helped Howard to win four elections in a row and directed the Conservative party campaign in Britain in 2005. "For the first time in 25 years in this country, the environment is an important voting issue." Crosby is no new-generation eco-rebel. That he can see the way the wind is blowing speaks volumes.

By the banks of the Tamar river in Tasmania, winegrower Peter Whish-Wilson has built up the Three Wishes vineyard and is also in no doubt that the climate is changing in politics as well as the skies. "We have had storms come through that we have never seen before," he says. "In the last five years we have broken every single temperature record - highest temperature, lowest, highest rain. Climate change is tangible; we can see it in the country. Farmers are coping with the worst droughts on record.

"The country is learning the hard way. It has always been seen as the lucky country, with a lot of land and resources, but you can't live in a lot of Australia now."

For him, the pulp mill is part of the choice facing Australia: between exploiting its natural resources or managing them. On the road that runs past his farm, huge logging trucks already pass every few minutes, loaded with wood cut from the hills. The scene confronting visitors to the forests is almost apocalyptic. Trees are bulldozed or blown apart with explosives and the ground cleared by fires, started by napalm dropped from helicopters. Any native wildlife that survives is culled by sodium fluoroacetate poison, allowing regimented new saplings to grow - monoculture on an industrial scale.

This, and the sense that the island is in thrall to the power of the giant timber business Gunns, is one reason Howard's Liberal party fears it will lose two key marginal seats in Tasmania tomorrow, on the back of Green party votes redistributed to Labor under Australia's preferential system.

Gunns, the company that wants to build the plant, argues that it will be "the world's greenest pulp mill". Opponents dispute that: they say that its chlorine processes are outdated and will pump dioxins into the fishing grounds of the Bass Strait. They also question the economics: the A$1.7bn (£720m) plant will require state funding and huge bank loans.

The logging company argues that "opponents of the development have resorted to misinformation, scaremongering and false claims". It has not been shy of taking on Tasmania's green movement, and in 2004 launched a multimillion-dollar claim for damages against a group of environmentalists. It is true that, as Gunns say, part of the Tamar valley is already industrialised. There is a metals plant at one end, and a woodchip mill, which will feed the pulp plant. But the planned site is untouched. "If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere. People have got to come to grips with the fact there has got to be a balance," says Whish-Wilson.

The journey from Tasmania to Sydney's eastern suburbs involves a dramatic switch of cultures. In the richest part of the country's largest city, Saabs and Range Rovers crowd narrow streets of Victorian terraced houses and huge glass and stone millionaires' palaces tumble down to the harbourside. There are boutiques and designer coffee bars, the haunt of Australia's pinot grigio classes, as well as Bondi beach and Australia's biggest gay community.

This is the Wentworth constituency of Malcolm Turnbull, the millionaire lawyer who took on the British establishment in the Spycatcher trial and went on to campaign, unsuccessfully, for a republic in a referendum opposed by most Liberals. By saving the monarchy, he said, Howard was "the prime minister who broke Australia's heart". At least until tomorrow, Turnbull is also the environment minister and one of the most striking players in Australian politics - a man of ability and undisguised ambition.

He could hope to replace Howard as Liberal party leader. Instead, Turnbull's political career may be cut short. As environment minister, Turnbull himself led the way in announcing a ban on the sale of tungsten light bulbs, a world first. But his seat ... solidly conservative for more than a century - is at risk after a backlash from voters who oppose the Tasmanian pulp mill. Lampposts across the constituency sport Green party slogans. The Greens expect a record vote in this election, but their vote is not concentrated enough to win seats in parliament. The irony is that if Turnbull is defeated, Labor, which also supports the mill, will win.

The scale of Green activism in Wentworth is one sign of a changing country. Another is the background of the man picked by Labor to fight the Sydney seat that sits next to Turnbull's. Elected as a Labor MP in 2004, and now - like Turnbull - his party's environment spokesman, Peter Garrett is the closest Australia gets to Bono. As the lead singer of Midnight Oil, a rock group that formed the soundtrack to rebellion for a generation of Australians, Garrett used his music to campaign for Aboriginal rights and environmental change.

Now he is accused of being a sell-out in a suit, kept out of the limelight during the election campaign by a party worried that he might frighten voters. In the ferocious TV attack ads allowed by Australian electoral law, he has been repeatedly described by the Howard campaign as one of Labor's "fanatics, extremists and learners" - after a supposed slip when he admitted that Labor's green policies appeared cautious but that "once we get in, we'll just change it all".

Garrett and Turnbull might deny it, but the two Sydney MPs have much in common. Both want to push further on the environment than their parties allow. Both probably privately wish the Tasmanian pulp mill plan would disappear. And both are tall poppies in a political culture that punishes individuality.

Westminster is a model of freethinking compared with Australia's House of Representatives and elected Senate. Rebellion against the party whip is not just frowned upon but banned: any MP who tries it risks expulsion. The result is a form of processed politics that encourages caution and blandness. David Cameron's attempt to modernise the Tories produces puzzled looks from Australian Liberals, still a party of white men sweating slightly in heavy suits and loud striped ties.

Howard himself will soon leave office whether he wins or loses - and he may lose in the most dramatic form possible, since his marginal Sydney seat of Bennelong will swing to Labor if the polls are right. Even if he survives, he faces a fate familiar to Tony Blair. Having long fended off the prime ministerial ambitions of his treasurer Peter Costello, he has been forced by a cabinet revolt to promise to stand down after the election. But Costello is an unconvincing performer with the droopy looks of a fall guy in a New York cop show and a political agenda almost as antique as Howard's.

According to Crosby, "the government is campaigning on the risk associated with change to an inexperienced team". It is a tactic Gordon Brown will surely use in Britain next time - and it might work. But it has allowed the Rudd campaign to set the terms of the debate. The Howard government has proposed an aggressive plan to intervene in Aboriginal affairs. Though it was much-discussed before the campaign, Labor has not challenged its fundamentals. Nor has Australia's presence in Iraq, or the future of the monarchy, caught national attention.

Politicians blame Australia's media culture for the decline in debate, but the fault lies with parties too. They have reduced campaigning to the mechanistic manipulation of numbers - seeking to catch the attention of the sort of disengaged and easily scared wavering voters who do not turn out in Britain but must do so by law in Australia or risk a $20 fine. That leads to turnout of more than 90%, but also crude tactics such as Howard's scare stories over asylum seekers in past elections, and a Liberal leaflet discovered this week that claimed to be from a Muslim group backing suicide bombers and thanking Labor from its support. Howard distanced himself from it quickly.

Labor has also indulged in attention-grabbing: Rudd exposed himself to an interview in which he was asked whether he would win a bar fight against Howard, and who he "might turn gay for". "My wife," he replied - which led the host to ask, not unreasonably, if she was therefore a man.

That demeaning of debate is common to many modern democracies: caught on camera seemingly eating his own earwax, Rudd faced mockery. The British tabloids would surely do the same to Cameron or Brown. Underneath all this there is a serious election trying to escape: it's about a society that is more prosperous than ever, but uncomfortable about the effect of prosperity on the way people live and on the planet's ecosystem.

"The Howard government has degenerated and is purely obsessed with its own re-election," says Lindsay Tanner, the Labor MP for inner-city Melbourne, a seat where the Green party is also strong. He is hopeful that the necessary superficialities of a campaign will not prevent the election of a government that can respond to environmental and social change. "We have been disciplined and focused and kept political attention on critical issues, with climate change and Workchoices employment legislation as the most obvious priorities," he says.

Back in Tasmania, Gunns claim that its timber industry will be part of this sustainable future. If elected, Labor will have to decide if it agrees. It will not have much time to think. Logging of new sections of native forest is set to start on Monday. Work on the pulp mill will begin within weeks.guardian


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Nov 07, 11:01 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
We fret over Europe, but the real threat to sovereignty has long been the US


Britain's biggest foreign influence is the one politicians don't dare debate: not immigration, not Brussels, but America



One knows something is important when the powers that be choose not to acknowledge it in public. Since 1945, Britain has been subject to at least three invasions. Two of these invasions have been massively discussed, and are widely viewed as having challenged and complicated understandings of what it means to be British. The empire came home, in that migrants from former overseas colonies settled here in large numbers, as they never had before the war; and Britain joined what is now the European Union, and became subject to interventions of different kinds emanating from Brussels.


The third post-1945 invasion was just as momentous, yet official and media silence about it is usually deafening. Since 1947, there have been US military bases in the UK: something that would have been unthinkable before 1939.

Schoolchildren in the United States are still taught that London's decision to keep 10,000 troops in the colonies after 1763 was one of the precipitants of the American revolution. Yet, according to the available statistics, over 10,500 US military personnel were stationed in the UK as late as 2005, a higher total than in any other European state, barring Germany and Italy, both defeated in the second world war. In all, well over 1.3 million US personnel have been stationed here since 1950, without - so far as I know - any consultation of the electorate.

It is not the exact number of these troops, however, but what they represent that is significant - namely London's postwar position of considerable clientage to Washington in terms of foreign policy and much else.

To refer to these subjects is to invite accusations of anti-Americanism. But I am not anti-American. I have worked in the US for 20 years. My point is not American power, but rather the double standard that characterises so much British political discourse. Sections of the media and members of both major parties have been all too eager to bang the autonomy drum when it comes to Europe. But there is a marked unwillingness to analyse the challenges to British independence from US influence; and those touching on the subject are swiftly denounced.

The usual rationalisation for this double standard is that the EU threatens Britain's internal way of life, while its relationship with the US does not. This is palpably absurd. Even leaving aside its military bases, America's influence on the domestic ordering of British life has been enormous, though sometimes unrecognised. The central place of deposit for Britain's historic archives at Kew, for instance, used to be called the Public Record Office, but is now re-named the National Archives. Why? Presumably because this is what the US styles its central place of archival deposit in Washington.

American influence has had far more portentous consequences. As Timothy Garton Ash recently remarked on these pages, people in Britain are subject to some of the most extensive official surveillance in the world. One excuse for this is the threat from terrorism. Would this threat be as great without our participation in the Iraq war? And would Britain have participated in that war had it not been so accustomed to following Washington's foreign-policy lead?

Why are large sections of Britain's political class seemingly at once so enamoured of America, yet so nervous of Brussels? The argument that this reflects traditional ties between English-speaking peoples won't do. As historians like Kathleen Burk and Paul Kennedy have documented, before 1914 (and even after in some cases) members of Britain's political elite were more likely to be pro-German than steadfastly pro-American. Even in the 1920s, Winston Churchill was adamant that "we do not wish to put ourselves in the power of the United States". So when David Miliband feels obliged to argue that Europe can aspire only to be a regional power, not a great power (which might conflict with US interests), this reflects less a long tradition of transatlantic amity than a degree of British diffidence in the face of Washington that has arisen since 1945.

The obvious reason for this has been the extent both of America's postwar power and Britain's postwar decline. Postcolonial critics are, I suspect, wrong when they argue that the mass of British people still mourn the loss of empire. But Britain's politicians - and its Foreign Office - have found it hard to adjust to the loss, not so much of onetime colonies, as of the global clout the colonies once afforded. "Poor loves", the novelist John Le Carré has one of his characters declare from Oxford (alma mater of both Tony Blair and David Cameron): "Trained to empire, trained to rule the waves. All gone. All taken away. Bye-bye world."

Shadowing Washington allows official Britons who still hunger for the big stage some continued admission, even if it is only as supporting players. And there is a further consideration that underlines how closely foreign policy has been bound up with postwar British anxieties. Conservative and Labour governments have arguably championed British rights in Brussels so ostentatiously in order to deflect public attention away from their deference to Washington. But British official suspicion of Europe also stems from the challenge it undoubtedly represents to the union. Scottish and Welsh nationalists, like the Irish Republic before them, favour much closer involvement in the EU precisely because they believe this will lessen their countries' dependence on Westminster.

Indeed one of the problems with current debates about "Britishness" is that they focus too exclusively on domestic identities and values. Addressing the question of what Britain is, and of how far it can plausibly function as an independent and united polity, requires a far more informed and even-handed public discussion than exists at present about our relations with both America and the rest of Europe.

Such a discussion might be uncomfortable for more than just the politicians. Since 1945, Britain - like much of Europe - has been tacitly involved in a massive bargain. The US has bankrolled large sectors of our defences, and thus allowed our governments to plough money into various social programmes instead. The EU - and Miliband was right on this - is itself not remotely close to possessing the kind of firepower that would underpin the vast ambitions of its more ardent supporters.

To this degree, dependence on the US is inescapable, and is likely to be so for some time. There has been a reluctance to spell this out, and even more of a reluctance to address what might happen if US power recedes in the future to the degree that some American commentators are now predicting. Would English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish taxpayers be willing to pay more for defence if this meant being less entangled with US priorities and pressures? As is true of our foreign relations generally, public debate on this issue has barely begun.

· Linda Colley is professor of history at Princeton University and the author of Captives: Britain, Empire and the World, 1600-1850
lcolley@princeton.edu

guardian


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Nov 07, 11:02 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Hostage hopes fade as Colombia sacks negotiator Chávez


Rory Carroll, Latin America correspondent

Colombia's government has abruptly halted Hugo Chávez's mediation efforts to release hostages held by rebels in Colombia's jungle, dashing the best chance in years to win their freedom.

The government said Venezuela's president had overstepped his remit in trying to broker a deal and that his services were no longer required.

The decision prompted strong protests from relatives of the hostages as well as the French government, which hoped Chávez could secure the release of Íngrid Betancourt, a high-profile prisoner with dual French and Colombian nationality.


As the leader of a self-styled socialist revolution in a neighbouring country Chávez was well placed to reach out to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc), left-wing guerrillas who have waged a bloody civil war against the Colombian state for decades.

President Alvaro Uribe gave his Venezuelan counterpart the green light in August to negotiate with the rebels and as recently as this week he credited Chávez as "the only one in the world" who could clinch a deal. Even the US endorsed the mediation, through gritted teeth, in the hope that its South American "bogeyman" could deliver the freedom of three American contractors who are among the hostages.

But on Wednesday night Uribe made a dramatic reversal. "The president has terminated the mediation," a statement from his office said. The reason cited was Chávez's breach of protocol in speaking directly to a Colombian military official. Earlier that day the Venezuelan leader had spoken by telephone with General Mario Montoya about the guerrillas.

The underlying reason was Uribe's exasperation with the high-profile wooing of people he considers terrorists. The rebels killed his father during a botched kidnapping and he has no love either for the Caracas revolutionary, though pragmatism obliges both men to keep relations cordial. The conservative Colombian president has built his reputation and popularity on tough policies aimed at crushing Farc. Cancelling Chávez's initiative marked a return to that rigid approach.

Analysts were divided over whether the decision was justified but they agreed it was bad news for the hundreds of prisoners languishing in remote jungle camps, in some cases for over a decade.

"It is a sad day for the families of the hostages," Marleny Orjuela, a spokeswoman for the families of kidnapped soldiers and police officers, told Colombia's Caracol radio.

Betancourt was seized while campaigning for the presidency in 2002. French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who has made her release a priority, expressed concern. "We hope that the dialogue between President Uribe and President Chávez resumes," said a spokesman.
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2215780,00.htmlguardian[/url]


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Nov 07, 11:05 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
No food, no clothes, no home. The poor who have lost everything


Appeals for aid as country tries to recover from storm that has left 2m destitute


Jonathan Watts in Jhalokati





Collapsed homes, uprooted trees and inundated crops puncture the serenity of the view from the Bangladeshi Air Force helicopter as it approaches the site of the country's worst cyclone in more than a decade.

After crossing high above mangrove forests, rivers and dusky swamps, the Russian-made MI17 swoops down towards the town of Jhalokati, drawing people running out of their homes towards the emergency landing pad in the local football stadium.

Word had got out that a new consignment of food, water and clothes was on its way to the hard-hit region.

Some were curious. Many others were desperate for the provisions sent by the World Food Programme (WFP) and paid for by international donors.

Police and soldiers kept the crowd at a distance as the chopper touched down and the 2.4 tonnes of high-energy biscuits and other aid was unloaded in less than 20 minutes.

Onlookers were patient but hungry. It has been a week since Cyclone Sidr struck and for some this is only the second time they have had outside help.

"We have no food, no clothes, no home. We have lost everything," said Henara Begom as her two-year-old son cried in her arms in a crush by the gate. "There are five people in my family. We haven't eaten for two days. We want to be strong so that we can rebuild our lives. But now we need help."

There are only 10 minutes before the chopper leaves. It must return to its base in the capital, Dhaka, before sunset as it is dangerous to land in the dark. But a man takes visitors outside the stadium to show the damage done to the community. As is the case throughout south-western Bangladesh, it is the poorest of the poor who are worst hit. Masonry "pukka" houses by the roads are relatively unscathed. But the families living in bamboo shacks at the edge of the river have suffered serious losses. At least 45 people have died here. Many others have lost their homes.

Submerged

At a rickshaw driver's shack the corrugated iron roof panels were torn off like strips of tinfoil. "The waters rose up and submerged our home," said the resident, as she stared up at the sky from what used to be her bedroom. "We need shelter more than anything."

It is becoming an urgent but familiar appeal after what was already one of the world's poorest nations was ravaged last Thursday by a cyclone that killed more than 3,100 people and left hundreds of thousands homeless and almost two million destitute.

Jhalokati is by no means the worst-affected region. More than 30km (19 miles) from the coast, it suffered less than the poor fishing villages and shrimp farms living on the sand bar islands closer to the Bay of Bengal.

International aid agencies say shelter is the biggest short-term priority, although clean water and medicine are also desperately needed to prevent a spread of waterborne diseases.

Tales of hardship fill the local media. "We don't have anything left. Everyone here, both the rich and the poor, has become a beggar," said Abul Kashem Hoalader, a politician from South Khali.

The Daily Star related the tale of a man who had been searching for his wife since he was knocked unconscious while holding her hand in the storm.

"I just found her body under the hyacinths in the canal," he said. "People are now tired of burying bodies and they are busy collecting whatever relief is available so I am not getting anyone to help me recover her body."

Relief workers described traumatic scenes as they visited areas that have previously been inaccessible.

"They are burying four or five people in a single grave. Homes are completely flattened, roads blocked and trees torn up," said Mokit Billah of Action Aid, who has just returned from the edge of the Sundarban, one of the worst-affected areas. "Yesterday I saw the body of a six- or seven-year-old child. A woman was running back and forth, crying, looking for her husband. There are so many poor and hungry people. So many dead bodies. I was crying. I have never seen anything like it in my life. The old people described it as the apocalypse."

There are stories too of heroism, tragedy and hope. In Kanainagar village a fisherman's wife - Shathi Sarkan - gave birth in a cyclone shelter as the winds howled around her. According to the Prothom Alo newspaper, locals have named her baby boy Sidr after the storm that they say brought something good among so much devastation.

A grimmer tale is told by the International Federation of the Red Cross, which mobilised 30,000 volunteers to spread advance warning about the cyclone with drums and loudspeakers, as well as dealing with its consequences.

One team leader, Anwar Hossain, reportedly spent hours warning residents in Patuakhali district to evacuate to shelters. But he was so busy helping others that when he returned to his own home he found his parents had been washed away by the tidal surge. His mother's body was later recovered.

The federation predicated 10,000 deaths, but they are now moving closer to the government's much lower estimate. It says, however, that the toll cannot just be measured in fatalities.

"It is not just about casualties and headcounts," said Devendra Tak, senior regional officer of the federation. "Half a million cattle have perished. There has been a huge effect on livelihoods. This is truly a disaster of large proportions."

Other aid groups, including Unicef, are working on the psychological damage to children.

Traumatised

"Some saw their relatives killed by trees that fell on their homes, or they saw dead bodies - something many of them had never seen before," Raphael Palma, of World Vision, told Associated Press. "They are still somehow traumatised and need support."

In the longer term the biggest need is for food, as some areas have suffered damage to 95% of their crops, many fishermen have lost their boats and the shrimp farms that are an important source of revenue in the worst-affected coastal region have been devastated.

The WFP is asking for almost $30bn (£15bn) over the next three months to feed 2.2 million people. It would be a doubling of their existing operation in a country where a third of the 150m population subsist below the poverty line. Foreign governments have already pledged $200m. Saudi Arabia has led the donors, but India, Pakistan, Britain and other EU nations had offered large contributions. Two US navy vessels, the Essex and Kearsarge, each carrying 20 or more helicopters, will join the relief effort at the weekend.

It is much needed. According to reports aid is still not reaching most victims and there are fears that the increase in weak people drinking polluted water could lead to more casualties. Yesterday there were at least two reports of people dying from diarrhoea.

But it could be far worse. During the last major cyclone, in 1990, 143,000 people died. A similarly powerful storm killed half a million in 1970. The gradually declining toll is attributed to shelters, better warning systems, improved international aid and luck - this year's killer cyclone could have been much worse if it had struck at high tide in a crowded area rather than in low tide with impact diluted by the natural tree barrier provided by the Sundarbans.

A quarter of the Sundarbans, the world's biggest mangrove forest, was wiped out after suffering the full fury of the cyclone. The area has been designated by the UN as a world heritage site. The carcasses of about a dozen deer have been found, but conservationists said they were hopeful that the rare royal bengal tiger had survived.

After the misery and destruction of last week the mood is shifting towards hope and reconstruction.

The Bangladeshi Air Force pilot, who asked to remain nameless, said the situation on the ground was better than when he had first started relief missions in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. Roads are being cleared so it should soon be possible to supply food in larger quantities by truck. "I am glad to help," he said. "They have lost everything."
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/naturaldisasters/story/0,,2215785,00.html]guardian


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Nov 07, 21:01 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Howard's reign in Australia ends



Prime minister John Howard today admitted defeat in Australia's general election, and looks set to lose his parliamentary seat.

Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd swept to power, ending an 11-year conservative era and promising major changes to policies on global warming and his country's role in the Iraq war.

The win marked a humiliating end to the career of Howard, who became Australia's second-longest serving leader - and who had appeared almost unassailable as little as a year ago.


In a nationally televised concession speech, Howard announced he had phoned Rudd to congratulate him on "a very emphatic victory".

"I accept full responsibility for the Liberal Party campaign, and I therefore accept full responsibility for the coalition's defeat in this election campaign," Howard said.

Howard was also in danger of becoming only the second sitting prime minister in 106 years of federal government to lose his seat in parliament.

Official figures from the Australian Electoral Commission showed Labor well ahead with more than 60% of the ballots counted. An Australian Broadcasting Corp analysis showed that Labor would get at least 81 places in the 150-seat lower house of parliament - a clear majority.

ABC radio reported that Howard aides said the prime minister had phoned Rudd to concede defeat. Rudd is expected to formally claim victory later today.

The change in government from Howard's centre-right Liberal-National Party coalition to the centre-left Labor Party also marks a generational shift for Australia.

Rudd, a 50-year-old former diplomat who speaks fluent Chinese, urged voters to support him because Howard was out of touch with modern Australia and ill-equipped to deal with new-age issues such as climate change.

Howard campaigned on his economic management, arguing that his government was mostly responsible for 17 years of unbroken growth, fueled by China's and India's hunger for Australia's coal and other minerals, and that Rudd could not be trusted to maintain prosperous times.

Rudd said he would withdraw Australia's 550 combat troops from Iraq, leaving twice that number in mostly security roles. Howard had said all the troops will stay as long as needed.

However, a new government is unlikely to mean a major change in Australia's foreign relations, including with the United States - its most important security partner - or with Asia, which is increasingly important for the economy.

But one of the biggest changes will be in Australia's approach to climate change. Rudd has nominated the issue as his top priority, and promises to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.

When he does so, the United States will stand alone as the only industrialised country not to have signed the pact.

Labor has been out of power for more than a decade, and few in Rudd's team - including him - has any government experience at federal level. His team includes a former rock star - Midnight Oil singer Peter Garrett - and a swag of former union officials.

But analysts say his foreign policy credentials are impeccable, and that he has shown discipline and political skill since his election as Labor leader 11 months ago.

Rudd's election as Labor leader marked the start of Howard's decline in opinion polls, from which he never recovered.

Howard's four straight election victories since 1996 made him one of Australia's most successful politicians. He refused to stand down before this election - even after being urged to do by some party colleagues. However, Howard earlier this year announced plans to retire within about two years if he won the election.
guardian


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Nov 07, 21:02 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Musharraf allows rival to return to Pakistan




Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf will allow his bitter rival Nawaz Sharif to return home tomorrow, ending seven years of exile in Saudi Arabia, Musharraf's spokesman said.

"Yes he will be allowed to land," retired General Rashid Qureshi told the Observer, referring to Sharif's planned arrival at Lahore airport tomorrow afternoon aboard a chartered Saudi jet.

Musharraf ejected Sharif, whom he deposed as prime minister in a 1999 coup, from Pakistan when he tried to return last September. Four hours after landing in Islamabad the burly politician was bundled onto a Saudi-bound airliner.

But the military ruler changed his mind earlier this week following a meeting with the Saudi monarch King Abdullah in Riyadh.

Qureshi said: "Discussions were carried out on Nawaz Sharif's return. The president said there is no issue, he can return if he wants to."

Sharif's return is a potent addition to Pakistan's political cauldron, with Musharraf struggling to maintain power against a backdrop of great instability and rising Islamist violence.

Today two suicide bombers struck outside army headquarters in Rawalpindi, killing at least 35 people. One bomb hit an army checkpoint; the other a bus laden with employees from the powerful Inter Services Intelligence agency.

They were the first major attacks since Musharraf imposed emergency rule three weeks ago. Musharraf, who insists he wants to become a civilian ruler, is under intense international pressure to lift the emergency and make good on promises to resign as head of the army.

Today the national election commission cleared Musharraf to take oath as a civilian president following the defeat of all legal challenges to his re-election. His spokesman, Qureshi, said that once the federal government is officially notified on Monday, Musharraf may take off his uniform as early as Tuesday. "I don't think it's going to take long. I would estimate a day or two [after Monday] before change of baton of the army, then oath taking," he said.

The return of Sharif will complicate Musharraf's plans to remain in power. The two have been nursing a nasty feud since 1999, when Musharraf ousted Sharif as prime minister as part of the bloodless coup that brought him to power. Musharraf said the move had been triggered by Sharif's clumsy attempt to remove him as head of the army.

A year later Sharif was released from prison on condition of agreeing to a 10-year exile in Saudi Arabia. Local media reported that Musharraf tried to persuade Saudi authorities to keep him there during his flying visit earlier this week. But the Saudis insisted he had to go home.

Sharif is due to fly from Medina to Lahore aboard a plane chartered by the Saudi royal family and arriving at 3pm (10pm GMT). That gives him enough time to file his nomination papers for planned January 8 elections by Monday.

Musharraf aides put a brave face on his return, framing it in terms of national reconciliation. "The president's a very magnanimous man. Nawaz Sharif is the head of one political party. If the rest of the political leaders can come to Pakistan, then he can too," said Qureshi.

Sharif aides denied his return had been greased by a political agreement. "Nawaz will die but he will not make a deal with Musharraf," said Javed Hashmi, the acting president of his Pakistan Muslim League-N party, on Friday.

The drama underscores the weight of Saudi influence in Pakistan. Local media reported that Riyadh wanted Sharif, a conservative who as prime minister once tried to have himself titled "commander of the faithful", to return as a counterweight to Benazir Bhutto, a relatively secular and liberal woman.

The return also spells trouble for Musharraf's political associates. His Pakistan Muslim League-Q party draws on the same vote bank as Sharif in Punjab, the country's most populous and powerful province. A strong showing by Sharif in the January poll could scupper Musharraf's chances of a stranglehold on parliament. Yesterday his former prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, said he would not be contesting the January vote.
guardian


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Nov 07, 21:03 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Lebanon's president hands power to army




Outgoing Lebanese president, Emile Lahoud, leaves the presidential palace in Baabda, north of Beirut
Outgoing Lebanese president, Emile Lahoud, leaves the presidential palace in Baabda, north of Beirut. Photograph: Ramzi Haidar/AFP/Getty


Lebanon was again plunged into uncertainty yesterday after parliament failed in a fifth attempt to elect a president, and the former Syrian backed-president Emile Lahoud, whose term ended at midnight, passed control of the security services over to the army, declaring a state of emergency.

The US-backed government of Fouad Siniora rejected the declaration. "It is as if the statement was never issued," said Siniora. The constitution says a president cannot call a state of emergency without government approval, but Lahoud and the Hizbullah-led opposition view the cabinet as unconstitutional following the walk out of its Shia ministers last year.

The country is now in a presidential vacuum, with thousands of troops deployed across Beirut, and is likely to stay that way until the elections, postponed until next Friday, are attempted again.

Neither side seems clear on what the army's mandate will be, with some expecting it to play a noticeably greater role in managing the state and others anticipating a continuation of the status quo. Few Lebanese have expressed surprise at the move. It is generally seen as a stalling measure to give the two camps more time to find a way out of the impasse.

Some constitutional experts have said the move is meaningless and analysts say Lahoud's offer was vague enough for the army to interpret it as it pleases.

"This is essentially a military authority to oversee negotiations, but if the government takes over Lahoud's responsibilities, the opposition will escalate," said Amal Saad Ghorayeb of the Carnegie Middle East Centre. "But if the army steps in and assumes a greater role in the managing of the state, the opposition will stay silent and focus on negotiations."

The government had said it would elect its own president without the participation of the opposition if a solution could not be reached. The opposition has said any such move is tantamount to a "coup". If the two sides cannot agree on a candidate, the opposition has threatened to set up a second government operating in tandem, as was the case at the end of Lebanon's 15-year civil war.

Washington made a statement after Lahoud's announcement calling for calm and pledging support to the Lebanese army and security services. The US state department appealed for Lebanon's military and security services to uphold the law and for political actors to negotiate.

It made no reference to Lahoud's emergency declaration, however, and said Washington understood that when his term expires "the Lebanese cabinet will temporarily assume executive powers and responsibilities until a new president is elected by Lebanon's parliament".

State department spokesman Sean McCormack said: "This is the procedure stipulated by the Lebanese constitution and will ensure that the government is able to continue conducting its business without interruption.

"The US government commends Lebanon's armed forces and security services for their stated commitment to ensuring law and order during this interim period, and we urge all Lebanese political groups to do their part to maintain calm and promote security for Lebanon's citizens."

In a travel alert, the state department noted Lahoud's action and said the election process "may pose security issues" for US citizens and others in the country.
guardian


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Nov 07, 21:05 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Bush wins crucial Saudi support for first Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in seven years


· Syria also likely to attend Annapolis conference
· Few on any side expect agreement on tough issues



The US-brokered Annapolis peace conference was given a significant boost yesterday when heavyweight Saudi Arabia decided to send its foreign minister to the launch of the first peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians in seven years. Syria, Israel's most implacable Arab enemy, signalled that it was now also likely to attend.

Prince Saud al-Faisal said he would be taking part in next Tuesday's Maryland summit as part of an Arab "consensus" of support for the Palestinians - despite near-universal gloom about the prospects of agreement on the toughest issues.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, had urged fellow Arab leaders to come to Annapolis, arguing that there were prospects of meaningful negotiations with Ehud Olmert of Israel on the creation of a Palestinian state within a year. "We have a historic opportunity," Abbas told reporters in Cairo. "We are hoping that we will be together at the conference discussing all tracks, the Palestinian-Israeli track, the Syrian-Israeli track and the Lebanese track."

Saudi Arabia, home to the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina as well as a quarter of world oil reserves, is Washington's closest ally in the Arab world. Its presence guarantees wide, if sceptical, Arab support for George Bush's initiative.

Syria's position remains unclear. It has been holding out for a reference to the Golan Heights, still occupied by Israel 40 years after the 1967 war. "The United States has sent confirmation that it will include the Syrian-Israeli track ... the Golan ... on the Annapolis agenda," the official Syrian news agency quoted the foreign minister, Walid Moualem, as saying. "Syria will decide whether to attend or not in light of the agenda it receives."

Diplomats said consultations would continue over the weekend to secure US agreement to the demand from Damascus. "I think the Americans will include the reference Syria wants because they can't afford not to have us all there," one senior Arab official said.

Unlike Egypt and Jordan, Saudi Arabia has no diplomatic relations with Israel. "We were reluctant until today," Faisal said. "If not for the Arab consensus, we would not have decided to go. We are not prepared to take part in a theatrical show, in handshakes and meetings that don't express political positions."

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have still not agreed a joint declaration for the conference but will continue talks in the US before the meeting.

Polls published yesterday showed most Israelis support Annapolis but few expect results. According to one poll, published by the Ma'ariv newspaper, up to 50% of the Israeli public think Olmert has no mandate to negotiate with the Palestinians because of his unpopularity over last year's war in Lebanon and the alleged corruption scandals that surround him.

As Olmert flies to the US tomorrow, Israeli police will reveal whether they will bring charges against him in connection with a banking scandal. The Ma'ariv poll, which questioned 500 people, said 53% believed he was only going to Annapolis to improve his public standing, while 38% thought he wanted to make peace.

The same poll produced a mixed verdict on Abbas, with 48% saying they felt he wanted peace and 46% saying he did not. It found 56% of Israelis were in favour of evacuating some or all of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

A second poll found 69% supported the conference but only 22% expected it to succeed. The poll of 500 people, conducted by the Dahaf Polling Institute and published in the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, found only 40% in favour of evacuating most West Bank settlements.

Despite the general pessimism among Israelis and Palestinians, some still argue the conference is important. Ha'aretz, a left-leaning newspaper, said in an editorial that there was no point being dismissive. "Even the cynics acknowledge that the broad outlines of a two state solution are known, clear and acceptable to the majority in both nations. The question, therefore, remains: if not at Annapolis - then where, and if not now - then when?"

Annapolis has succeeded in uniting leading figures from Israel's right and left in opposition to the conference. Yossi Beilin, an MP prominent in Israel's peace camp, wrote this week: "The absence of a discussion on the core issues at Annapolis will leave us stuck in the intersection, exposed to extremists on both sides."

Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident who takes a much harder line on the Palestinians, argued that the meeting would fail because it was propping up a Palestinian leadership that was not committed to peace and that represented an "anti-democratic regime".

Why it matters

Annapolis, Maryland, home to the US naval academy, is to host the biggest Middle East peace conference since the Madrid summit of 1991. It is billed by the US as the launch pad for ambitious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, seven years since Bill Clinton's efforts failed, triggering the violence of the second intifada that claimed the lives of 4,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis. The stakes are high because failure, which many predict, would discredit moderate leaders on both sides, undermine faith in peace, and encourage extremists. The aim of the one-day meeting is to jumpstart "immediate and continuous" talks on an independent Palestinian state. These must address the toughest "final status" issues: the borders of that state, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the status of Jerusalem and its holy places, and the question of Palestinian refugees. Analysts say Annapolis is taking place because, after years of neglecting the conflict, President Bush is trying to repair the damage done by the Iraq war before he leaves office next year. Others accuse Washington of seeking to appease Arab states to build support in the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
guardian


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Nov 07, 21:09 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Rape inquiry over girl jailed with 20 men



Authorities in the Brazilian Amazon came under fire this week after reports that a 16-year-old girl had been repeatedly raped and tortured while being held in a prison cell with at least 20 men.

According to reports in the Brazilian press, the teenager was arrested last month after being caught stealing in Abaetetuba, a town on the outskirts of Belem, the capital of the Amazon state Para.

She reportedly spent 26 days in a cell at the local police station, although no formal charges were brought. This week the girl emerged from custody covered in bruises and cigarette burns.

The state governor, Ana Julia Carepa, ordered an inquiry following claims the teenager was locked up with the male prisoners for at least a month and was forced to have sex in exchange for food.

Carepa told the Estado news agency there were signs that the girl had been deliberately imprisoned in order for other prisoners to sexually exploit her. On Thursday four policemen were suspended. "It does not matter if she is 15, 20, 50 or 80 years old. A woman should not be held in a cell together with men," the governor said.

The regional human rights representative of Brazil's Lawyers Association, Mary Cohen, said she believed the girl had been subjected to "every imaginable type of physical and sexual aggression".

The revelations have unearthed other cases in which women were apparently imprisoned alongside men.

On Wednesday there were reports that a 23-year-old woman had shared a cell with about 70 men in the town of Parauapebas, also in the state of Para.

Amnesty International's Brazil researcher, Tim Cahill, said: "We receive extensive reports of women in detention who suffer sexual abuse, torture, substandard healthcare and inhuman conditions, showing that this case is far from isolated but continues to be hidden from the public."
guardian


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Nov 07, 0:09 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 04 Jun 02, 19:40
Posts: 29944
Location: Middle England
Malaysian police crush rally by Indians

Malaysia on Sunday faced its second big anti-government demonstration this month after nearly a decade’s absence of such protests, raising fears about whether the multi-ethnic country’s deep racial divisions could affect its stability.

Police used tear-gas and water cannon to crush a banned rally by 10,000 ethnic Indians, who were protesting about alleged discrimination by the ethnic Malay government. Ethnic Indians – 8 per cent of the 25m population – are Malaysia’s poorest racial group.

FT.com


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Nov 07, 15:24 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Bassist Flea's Home Destroyed By Wildfire Sky


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Nov 07, 15:25 
Offline
News Team Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 30 Dec 02, 18:50
Posts: 63927
Location: London
Eight Fans Die As Stand Collapses Skynews


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 720 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 48  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Material breaching copyright laws should be reported to webmaster (-at-) bbfans.com. BBFans.com is in no way affilated with Channel4 or Endemol.