FALKLAND ISLANDS LIBERATED

I’m a gay man who opposes gay marriage. Does that make ME a bigot, Mr Cameron?

By Andrew Pierce
12 June 2012

When David Cameron committed the Government to supporting same-sex marriage some months ago, he declared: ‘I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.’

His argument being that the party should support a long-term commitment in any relationship.

The unexpected policy shift caused uproar in the Tory Party in Parliament and across the country.

Now, a submission by the Church of England into the Government’s consultation on gay marriage has warned of an historic division between the Church’s canon law — that marriage is between a man and a woman — and Parliament.

It suggests the schism could even lead to ‘disestablishment’, a split between the Church and the State, and the removal of the Queen as Supreme Governor of the Church.

Calculated

Despite the opposition of every major faith group — notably the Catholic Church — Mr Cameron is arrogantly pressing ahead with an issue which excites his chums in the metropolitan elite, but which disregards the sentiments of millions of ordinary people who, as poll after poll has shown, are against it.

Even some of the Prime Minister’s admirers concede that the policy has less to do with offering equality to the gay community and more to do with decontaminating the allegedly ‘toxic’ Tory brand.

Perhaps the Prime Minister has calculated that anyone who stands up and argues against his proposals will be branded a homophobe and a bigot.

Well, Mr Cameron, I am a Conservative and a homosexual, and I oppose gay marriage. Am I a bigot?

And what about Alan Duncan, the first Conservative MP to come out as gay? Mr Duncan, the International Aid Minister who is in a civil partnership, is implacably opposed to gay marriage.

So is Dr David Starkey, the celebrated historian, who is openly gay.

The Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, meanwhile, who was the first Cabinet minister to enter into a civil partnership, is contemptuous of Mr Cameron’s motive for smashing down centuries of traditional Church teaching in reference to marriage.

‘This isn’t a priority for the gay community, which has already won equal rights with civil partnerships,’ says Bradshaw. ‘This is pure politics.’

He’s right. It’s yet another sop to the wretched Lib Dems, even though they number only 57 of the 650 MPs at Westminster.

The introduction of same-sex marriage became a policy commitment at the Lib Dem conference two years ago, even though there was no reference to it in their election manifesto, or in their four-page manifesto written for the gay community only six months earlier.

At the time, the former Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris hailed the policy as ‘creating clear blue water with the Tories’.

Few Conservatives took the idea seriously — until Mr Cameron’s bombshell announcement at the last Tory conference that he backed it, too.

In spite of the furore caused by the Church of England’s intervention this week, Downing Street is insisting that Mr Cameron, who has so far performed 34 policy U-turns in power, has no intention of backing down on this issue.

Even gay rights campaigners are puzzled by the Prime Minister’s conversion to the cause.
Stonewall, a powerful pressure group for gay equality, has not called for gay marriage.

While the organisation — of which I’m proud to be a member — supports the idea of gay marriage, its priority remains tackling homophobia in schools after research showed that gay men in the 16-to-24 age group are significantly more likely to have attempted suicide than other young men.

So who — apart from Mr Cameron — is clamouring for gay marriage to be allowed?

The Treasury estimates that six per cent of the population, or 3.7 million people, is gay. Yet I understand the Government’s Equalities office, having approached a polling company to test the opinion of the gay community, then decided not to go ahead.

Were the officials worried what the conclusions might be? None of my gay friends want gay marriage to be written into law.

A poll by Catholic Voice of 550 gay men and women suggested only 40 per cent identified the change in marriage as their priority.

Certainly, at Westminster yesterday, Tory MPs were appalled by the Prime Minister’s perverse set of priorities.

As one senior Tory figure told me: ‘In the week we have been demanding a policy shift to kickstart economic growth. We get instead an entirely predictable row about gay marriage.

‘What sort of message does our preoccupation with fringe issues like gay marriage and Lords reform send to people who are worried about their jobs?’

The Tory Party HQ, I can disclose, has warned the Prime Minister that this issue has triggered the biggest revolt among grassroots members since Tory MPs dumped Margaret Thatcher in 1990.

Worthless

Literally thousands of the party’s foot soldiers are refusing to renew their subscriptions. Some major donors have closed their cheque books.

So Tory rebels will be emboldened by this astonishing warning by the Church of England, which for once is showing clear and principled leadership, that it could be forced to abandon its traditional role of conducting weddings on behalf of the State.

Certainly, the Archbishop of Canterbury has dismissed as worthless the assurances of the Prime Minister and the Lib Dem Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone — nicknamed ‘Featherlight’ by her despairing civil servants — that churches will not be ordered to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies.

Mr Cameron seems to have learned nothing from the follies of the Labour government when it comes to imposing an equalities agenda on Britain’s leading faiths.

In 2007, Labour passed legislation which effectively ordered Roman Catholic adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples.

Now I have to declare an interest in this aspect of the argument: I spent the first two years of my life in a Catholic orphanage in Cheltenham run by nuns and, to this day, I am eternally grateful to the Catholic Children’s Society which placed me in a loving home with my adoptive parents, who cared for me as one of their own. But, disgracefully, societies like the ones that rescued me and thousands of other abandoned children have now been forced to close down because the Catholic Church understandably could not accept the Labour government’s diktat — which ran contrary to its sincerely-held beliefs.

Provoke

As a lapsed Catholic, I am not going to defend that Church’s teaching that homosexuality is a sin, but to force its adoption agencies to close on a point of moral principle was a scandal which has resulted in countless vulnerable children being denied the possibility of loving homes. What madness!

And for pity’s sake, which gays would have gone to Catholic agencies in the first place?

Those terribly depressing consequences of Labour’s sweeping changes should serve as a warning as the Tory-led Government presses on with the rewriting of the centuries-old tradition of marriage.

Ironically, if the change goes ahead, it could provoke legal challenges from the heterosexual community.

Ministers have ruled out extending civil partnerships, which became law in December 2005, beyond the gay community. So we gays will enjoy rights denied to heterosexuals. What an absurd state of affairs.

The truth is that no one has been able to explain to me the difference between gay marriage and a civil partnership. I have asked ministers and friends. None has an answer.

But I do. We already have gay marriage — it’s called civil partnership. Why can’t Mr Cameron just leave it there?

EU - The Genius of Mutual Indebtedness (Video)

The unmasking of internet trolls: New laws will make websites responsible for vile messages unless they reveal identities of bullies

By James Slack
12 June 2012

Cowardly internet ‘trolls’ who post vile abuse on Facebook and Twitter will be identified to their victims under laws unveiled today.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke wants to strip away the cloak of anonymity which shields website users who peddle lies and vicious smears.

Internet companies will be expected to agree to rules over how to deal with libellous comments posted on their sites.

They will be told that – provided they agree to hand over the identity of the abuser to their victim – the internet company itself will be protected from legal action by the victim of abuse.

If they refuse, however, they could be hauled before the courts and fined thousands of pounds for the hateful comments, even though they were made by a visitor to their website.

Officials believe the prospect of protection from a defamation case will be enough of a ‘carrot’ for the likes of Twitter and Facebook to agree to the new regime.

It will finally help to bring to an end the injustice of victims being subject to sickening online abuse – often from those they have never met – with little chance of finding out who is responsible.

In future, they will be able to use the names and email addresses of their tormentors to bring a prosecution for libel.

There have been a string of cases of ‘trolls’ posting lies – such as making accusations of paedophilia – on social networking sites.

Last night, Mr Clarke said: ‘As the law stands, individuals can be the subject of scurrilous rumour and allegation on the web with little meaningful remedy against the person responsible.

‘Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users.

‘But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often, faced with a complaint, they will immediately remove material.

‘Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant.’

The proposals are included in the Defamation Bill, which will be debated by MPs today.

The new powers will be balanced by proposals to stop people falsely claiming critical articles are defamatory simply to get them removed.

A one-year time limit is also being introduced to stop old articles triggering new libel claims.
Another of the issues facing the new legislation is how to identify internet users who leave abuse by using a shared computer, such as in an internet cafe.

Last week, a mother who was sent death threats by so-called internet ‘trolls’ won a landmark legal case against Facebook.

Nicola Brookes was tormented for months by anonymous bullies after she left an innocent message of support for an X Factor contestant on the social networking site.

She went to police to make a complaint but claimed officers told her to go home. But the 45-year-old refused to give up and, on Friday, won a court order forcing Facebook to identify the identities of the trolls. She now hopes to bring a private prosecution against them.

The benefit of the planned law change is that a victim will no longer have to spend large sums of money dragging the case to court.

Instead, they will be able to obtain their accuser’s identity direct from the website hosting their remarks. An internet company that refuses to co-operate can still be dragged to court to reveal the details.

In the case of Mrs Brookes, the information disclosed included the bullies’ names, email addresses and their computers’ internet protocol addresses, which can be used to determine a computer’s location.

Mr Clarke said: ‘The Government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations but also ensures information online can’t be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.

‘It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk.’

The overall aim of the Defamation Bill is to end ‘libel tourism’ and protect free speech. In recent years London has become the libel capital of the world.

Critics say this is because regulations favour claimants and that the very high costs involved in defending a claim mean many publications are forced to settle out of court, even when they believe what they published was true.

In an attempt to end trivial claims, future claimants will have to show that material has caused them ‘serious harm’. And those from outside the EU will face new hurdles before they can bring a claim in London.

Journalists will also be allowed a defence against defamation where they can show the material is in the public interest.

[ed. Internet censorship by stealth...]

French far-right chief Le Pen leads in local race

By Pierre Savary and Nicholas Vinocur
Sun Jun 10, 2012

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen took a commanding lead in the first round of a legislative election on Sunday, raising the prospect of a seat in parliament for her anti-immigrant party as her arch-foe, firebrand leftist Jean-Luc Melenchon, bowed out.

Le Pen won more than 42 percent of the vote in a working class district in northern France where she has established a loyal base for the National Front, tapping into unease over high unemployment and years of economic decline.

She faces a close-fought run-off next Sunday against a Socialist who should pick up votes from Melenchon supporters.

But, buoyed by deep-running anger over an economic crisis many see caused by the euro zone, her anti-euro party is at its closest in years to winning seats in parliament, making it to the run-off in four constituencies across France.

Le Pen, a dynamic 43-year-old, said the result in and around the former coal-mining town of Henin-Beaumont showed that her party remained a powerful political force after she placed came (sic) in the first round of this year's presidential election.

"Tonight, we confirm our position as the third political force in France," she said in front of cheering supporters.

The first-round election left President Francois Hollande on track for a Socialist-led majority in parliament after a solid win that should free him from having to rely on hard leftists or opposition conservatives to govern.

The local battle between Le Pen and Left Front coalition leader Jean-Luc Melenchon gripped France as the two outsize personalities faced off in a scarred landscape of run-down miners' houses, towering slag heaps and economic despair.

While they had promised to compete in a civil manner, the campaign turned nasty last week as Melenchon accused Le Pen of dirty tricks, notably distributing political tracts depicting him in Nazi garb or featuring messages in Arabic script.

Le Pen will face Socialist Party candidate Philippe Kemel, who came in second place with 23.5 percent of votes, according to an official tally, in a final runoff on June 17.

If she, or other National Front candidates in three other constituencies, wins the National Front would take a seat in the lower house National Assembly for the first time since 1986.

Melenchon, who got 21.48 percent of votes in Henin-Beaumont, conceded defeat in a brief speech under driving rain, saying his party had made progress but not enough to beat Kemel.

"I'm afraid you might be a bit disappointed," he told a silent crowd of supporters, adding that the second round would be very difficult for Le Pen, despite her high score.

The defeat robs the powerful orator, who came fourth in the first presidential round in late April and drew huge crowds to open-air rallies with fist-shaking speeches aiming to revive France's revolutionary spirit, of a platform in parliament.

[ed. Ha! Leftists are big on speeches, slogans and teleprompters but not so big on substance. Just ask Obama...]

Among the other constituencies where the far-right did well, Le Pen's 22-year-old niece, Marion Marechal-Le Pen, placed first in a southern district where she will compete with a Socialist and a centre-right candidate in a three-way final round.

Elsewhere, party spokesman Florian Philippot was due for a duel with a Socialist in eastern France and Gilbert Collard, a prominent lawyer and recent National Front member, came first in the southern Camargue district.

[ed. Very well done Marine, everyone at the National Front and supporters in France. Time to take your country back...]

North Dakota Considers Eliminating Property Tax

By MONICA DAVEY
June 11, 2012

BISMARCK, N.D. — Since Californians shrank their property taxes more than three decades ago by passing Proposition 13, people around the nation have echoed their dismay over such levies, putting forth plans to even them, simplify them, cap them, slash them. In an election here on Tuesday, residents of North Dakota will consider a measure that reaches far beyond any of that — one that abolishes the property tax entirely.

“I would like to be able to know that my home, no matter what happens to my income or my life, is not going to be taken away from me because I can’t pay a tax,” said Susan Beehler, one in a group of North Dakotans who have pressed for an amendment to the state’s Constitution to end the property tax. They argue that the tax is unpredictable, inconsistent, counter to the concept of property ownership and needless in a state that, thanks in part to wildly successful oil drilling, finds itself in the rare circumstance of carrying budget reserves.

“When,” Ms. Beehler asked, “did we come to believe that government should get rich and we should get poor?”

An unusual coalition of forces, including the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce and the state’s largest public employees’ unions, vehemently oppose the idea, arguing that such a ban would upend this quiet capital. Some big unanswered questions, the opponents say, include precisely how lawmakers would make up some $812 million in annual property tax revenue; what effect the change would have on hundreds of other state laws and regulations that allude to the more than century-old property tax; and what decisions would be left for North Dakota’s cities, counties and other governing boards if, say, they wanted to build a new school, hire more police, open a new park.

“This is a plan without a plan,” said Andy Peterson, president and chairman of the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce, who acknowledged that property taxes have climbed in some parts of the state and that North Dakota’s political leaders need to tackle the issue. “But this solution is a little like giving a barber a razor-sharp butcher knife — and by the way, this barber is blind — and asking him or her to give you a haircut. You’ll get the job done, but you might be missing an ear or an eye.”

Polls conducted last month and last week suggest that voters here overwhelmingly oppose the ballot measure to ban the property tax.

[ed. I don't understand that. The only reason I can think of would be that people have become so used to the media message that society will collapse without taxation and that they don't realise most taxes were only supposed to be temporary, like the 'income tax' (which in the UK was a Napoleonic war tax). We don't need tax to run the country, we need it to run the government...]

Still, even if the measure here fails on Tuesday, the notion is picking up steam in some Republican circles in other states, including North Carolina, Texas and Pennsylvania.

“No tax should have the power to leave you homeless,” said Jim Cox, a state representative in Pennsylvania who has proposed legislation to eliminate the school property tax in the state where, he said, such taxes have led to residents’ losing homes to sheriff’s sales, entering into reverse mortgages or simply moving away.

In a way, North Dakota, though 48th in population among the states, was a logical place for such a movement to brew. While the state’s property tax collections per capita generally fall near the middle among states, the surge in oil production over the past five years, mainly in the western portion of the state, has seen its effects ripple through other parts of life here. The state’s coffers are full, overflowing even. Assessments of home values, especially in some areas, have risen drastically too.

The political mood here, too, leans toward Republicans (who dominate Bismarck), small government, little intrusion and fiscal conservatism. Though opponents to the property tax here received a $12,000 donation in 2010 from the American Tax Reduction Movement, a sister group to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which grew out of California’s Proposition 13, members say the efforts here were largely organic, the result of unhappy property taxpayers getting fed up.

“The same problem kept coming up,” said Charlene Nelson, a homemaker who became a leader of the effort to amend the Constitution, pointing to what she deems the underlying problem with the property tax. “It means all of us are renters — none of us are homeowners.”

In recent years, state officials sent more money to localities to pay for schools in an effort to lower property tax bills. But opponents of the property tax said those efforts did not go nearly far enough, and collected nearly 30,000 signatures on petitions to bring the matter to the ballot.

Those who want to keep the property tax have vastly outraised the opponents, gathering more than $500,000, campaign finance reports show. Though the question is among four on ballots here on Tuesday — including the highly contentious question of whether the University of North Dakota should give up its Fighting Sioux nickname — residents here said they had been deluged with information about the property tax measure, on signs, in radio talk shows and through months of debates in school gymnasiums and recreation halls in small towns like Edgeley and Bowman.

For his part, Gov. Jack Dalrymple, a Republican, said he opposed the property tax ban. “It’s mind-boggling, really,” he said, in an interview, of the effects of such a ban. “We’d be changing everything, frankly.”

The notion, he said, that the state has enough surplus to replace property taxes for localities around the state without raising other taxes is false. For starters, he said, much of the state’s benefits from the oil boom are already dedicated legally to particular funds and cannot simply be transferred to support schools, counties, towns, park districts and the like.

Even if the ban fails, North Dakota lawmakers now seem all but certain to tackle broader solutions to the property tax question as early as next year.

“I have to say that we totally understand that North Dakotans are very concerned about their property tax payments,” Mr. Dalrymple said. “You have a tension there, and people say this can’t keep on.”

White student returns black scholarship

by UPI
June 11, 2012

A white high school senior in California says he returned a private scholarship he received after realizing it was intended for a black student.

Jeffrey Warren, 17, was awarded a $1,000 college scholarship by the Martin Luther King Senior Citizens Club at ceremonies in the gym of Martin Luther King High School in Riverside, The (Riverside) Press-Enterprise reported Monday, but after talking with his father, chose to return the money, noting "They announced it was for an African-American."

The cover letter to the scholarship application, which was sent to high school guidance counselors, but which Warren says he never saw, specified the prize was for African-Americans, and that African-Americans were "encouraged to apply," the newspaper said.

The club, despite mixed opinions, chose to accept Warren's return of the award, scholarship Chairwoman Etta Brown said, adding that the club would revise language on next year's application to clarify who is eligible.

The Sacramento Pacific Legal Foundation noted that organizations using private funding can use any eligibility criteria they choose for scholarships.

The club later awarded the scholarship to a female African-American student at Warren's school, the newspaper said.

[ed. Black caucus, black policeman's association, black music nights, black history month, la raza etc. I personally have no problem with any "community" giving themselves awards or organising themselves (even though i thought race wasn't supposed to matter anymore?), as long as a) they pay for it themselves (no tax-payer money) and b) when whites do exactly the same thing it isn't conveniently called "racism" and c) that it gets the same media reverence that the other divisive "cultural" rubbish does...]

Florida to sue DHS in voter registration battle

By Jonathan Easley
06/11/12

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) said he will sue the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to move forward with his controversial attempt to purge the voter-rolls in his state of ineligible voters.

“I have a job to do to defend the right of legitimate voters,” Scott told Fox News on Monday. “We’ve been asking for the Department of Homeland Security’s database, SAVE, for months, and they haven’t given it to us. So this afternoon, we will be filing a lawsuit, the secretary of State of Florida, against the Department of Homeland Security to give us that database. We want to have fair, honest elections in our state and we have been put in a position that we have to sue the federal government to get this information.”

Last week, the Department of Justice demanded Florida stop the voter-roll purge, saying it violated the federal Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, and was reliant on faulty Department of Motor Vehicle records to determine who is eligible to vote.

The Scott administration responded with a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder saying it would continue the voter-roll purge, and is now seeking the DHS federal database as a part of that push.

Republicans argue that state voter registration rolls are filled with noncitizens and others that are ineligible to vote. Democrats argue that the GOP is trying to strip voting rights from groups that tend to vote Democratic, and that there are only a handful of cases of voter fraud of the kind the GOP seeks to root out.

[ed. Like dead people? If the Dems removed all of those you'd probably be left with 10 people voting for these bunch of clowns, nationwide...]

Any Florida resident that is eligible to vote that is purged from the voter rolls would have to verify their citizenship in order to be allowed to vote.

Scott is a Tea Party favorite who came into office in the 2010 wave election, but has seen his favorability rating plummet into the low 30s since taking office. The lawsuit could spark another heated election-year clash in a battleground state, similar to the Democratic attempt to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) after he stripped public workers of their collective bargaining rights.

Beware the spy in the sky: After those Street View snoopers, Google and Apple use planes that can film you sunbathing in your back garden

By Vanessa Allen
10 June 2012

Spy planes able to photograph sunbathers in their back gardens are being deployed by Google and Apple.

The U.S. technology giants are racing to produce aerial maps so detailed they can show up objects just four inches wide.

But campaigners say the technology is a sinister development that brings the surveillance society a step closer.

Google admits it has already sent planes over cities while Apple has acquired a firm using spy-in-the-sky technology that has been tested on at least 20 locations, including London.

Apple’s military-grade cameras are understood to be so powerful they could potentially see into homes through skylights and windows. The technology is similar to that used by intelligence agencies in identifying terrorist targets in Afghanistan.

Google will use its spy planes to help create 3D maps with much more detail than its satellite-derived Google Earth images.

Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, warned that privacy risked being sacrificed in a commercial ‘race to the bottom’.

‘The next generation of maps is taking us over the garden fence,’ he warned. ‘You won’t be able to sunbathe in your garden without worrying about an Apple or Google plane buzzing overhead taking pictures.’

He said householders should be asked for their consent before images of their homes go online. Apple is expected to unveil its new mapping applications for its iPhone and other devices today – along with privacy safeguards. Its 3D maps will reportedly show for the first time the sides of tall buildings, such as the Big Ben clock tower.

Google expects by the end of the year to have 3D coverage of towns and cities with a combined population of 300million. It has not revealed any locations so far.

Current 3D mapping technology relies on aerial images taken at a much lower resolution than the technology Apple is thought to be using. This means that when users ‘zoom in’, details tend to be lost because of the poor image quality.

Google ran into trouble when it emerged that its Street View cars, which gathered ground-level panoramic photographs for Google Maps, had also harvested personal data from household wifi networks.

Emails, text messages, photographs and documents were taken from unsecured wifi networks all around Britain.

MILITARY TECHNOLOGY

Apple’s spy planes are believed to be equipped with technology developed by defence agencies to guide missile strikes.

Each plane is equipped with multiple cameras taking high-resolution photographs of buildings and landmarks from every possible angle, which are then compiled to make three-dimensional images.

The military-grade images are taken at a height of around 1,600ft, meaning people below are very unlikely to realise they are being photographed.

The cameras can be installed on planes, helicopters or even unmanned drones, although there are safety restrictions about the use of the latter in Britain.

A small plane carrying the cameras can photograph up to 100 square kilometres (38.6 square miles) every hour.

Google claimed it was a mistake even though a senior manager was warned as early as 2007 that the extra information was being captured. Around one in four home networks is thought to be unsecured because they lack password protection.

Little has been revealed about the technology involved in the spy planes used to capture the aerial images.

But they are thought to be able to photograph around 40 square miles every hour, suggesting they would be flying too quickly and at too great a height to access domestic wifi networks.

Like Google Maps, the resulting images would not be streamed live to computers but would provide a snapshot image of the moment the camera passed by.

Google pixellates faces and car number plates but faced criticism after its service showed one recognisable man leaving a sex shop and another being sick in the street.

Amie Stepanovich, of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre in America, said she believed Apple and Google would be forced to blur out homes in the same way Street View pixellates faces.

She said: ‘With satellite images, privacy is built in because you can’t zoom down into a garden. Homeowners need to be asked to opt in to show their property in high definition – otherwise it should be blurred out.’

Apple has previously used Google for its mapping services but last year it emerged it had bought C3 Technologies, a 3D mapping company that uses technology developed by Saab AB, the aerospace and defence company.

At the time C3 had already mapped 20 cities and it is believed to have added more with Apple’s backing. Its photographs have been shot from 1,600ft and one C3 executive described it as ‘Google on steroids’.

There are already 3D maps available online for most big city centres, but the images are often low resolution, meaning they are of little use for navigation and users cannot zoom in on detail.

Critics have argued that Apple and Google will face a backlash if they offer detailed 3D mapping of residential areas in suburbs and rural locations.

Debt crisis: €100bn bailout could backfire on Spain

By Louise Armitstead
10 Jun 2012

Prime minister Mario Rajoy today hailed the deal with Brussels as a “victory” for Spain and the eurozone, but analysts said it was unlikely to convince financial markets for long. Mr Rajoy’s claims that Spain’s public finances would not be impacted were disputed, even though the details of the deal have not been released.

“A bail-out is a bail-out, Spain, sorry,” said Steen Jakobsen chief economist of Saxo Bank, arguing that the liability for cost will be added to Spain’s public debt, even indirectly.

Open Europe, the London-based think tank, said if Spanish banks take up Brussels’ offer of €100bn in loans, Spain’s public debt would grow by around 10pc.

“If this is a victory - finally dealing with a glaring problem after four years - then we don’t want to see a defeat,” said Raoul Ruparel of Open Europe. “Spanish debt to GDP could be about to jump by 10pc in the near future and given its current path this could put Spain over 90pc debt to GDP, the level beyond which sustainability becomes questionable, much sooner than had been anticipated. This will require adjustments in its reform programme and lead to increasing market pressure.”

Spanish officials said the loan would cost 3pc a year rather than the 6pc-plus that it is costing Spain to borrow on the bond markets.

Spain’s socialits leader, Alfredo Perez Republica, said: “The government is trying to make use believe we won the lottery.”

Traders are braced for a volatile day on the financial markets as they wait for details of the deal. Following Spain’s request for help on Saturday, Brussels said it would make €100bn available via the bail-out funds, but it didn’t specify which one.

Mark Rutte, the Dutch finance minister, said that any plan to issue loans to Spain via the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) would have to subjected to a parliamentary vote. Finland is also likely to demand a vote of approval.

Experts said the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which replaces the EFSF in July, could be used instead. However, since ESM debt would rank above private bondholders, loans from this fund could make Spain even less attractive to private investors on the capital markets.

At a press conference today, Mr Rajoy admitted that Spain’s economy would deteriorate despite the deal. “This year is going to be a bad one,” he said. “Growth is going to be negative by 1.7pc, and also unemployment is going to increase.”

He insisted it was a credit agreement, not a rescue, but admitted that “if we had not done [the reforms] we have done in the past five months, the proposal yesterday would have been a bailout of the kingdom of Spain.”

Global leaders welcomed the deal and the eurozone’s efforts to stabilise Spain before the crucial elections in Greece next Sunday. Japanese Finance Minister Jun Azumi called it a “major first step” toward stabilising the European and global economy. US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said it represented “concrete steps on the path to financial union, which is vital to the resilience of the euro area.” Christine Lagarde said the IMF “stands ready” to help monitor the loan deal and assess Spain’s progress.

[ed. Italy has had to pay into this fund as well and they are as broke as Spain and not getting any better (in fact getting worse). But you don't need to be an economist to see that giving the guy across the road with a gambling habit MORE MONEY is not going to work in the long term. Besides which, and in true mafia fashion, "we helped you, now we OWN you...]

You Are Not Special Commencement Speech (Video)

Al Qaeda Offshoot Offers Camels for Obama's Head, Hens for Hillary Clinton's

By Mohamed Ibrahim
10th June, 2012

The al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia has mocked the new $33 million bounty on its top leaders heads by offering its own bounty for President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – 10 camels for Obama and 20 chickens for Clinton.

"Anyone who helps the Mujahideen find the whereabouts of Obama and Hillary Clinton will be rewarded with 10 Camels to the information leading to Obama and 10 hens and 10 cocks for Hillary," said senior Shabaab commander Fuad Mohamed Khalaf in a statement reported on numerous websites.

Earlier this week, the U.S. offered a total of $33 million through the State Department's Rewards for Justice program for information leading to the capture of seven different Shabaab leaders, including Khalaf.

The U.S. offered $7 million for founder and commander Ahmed Abdi Aw-Mohamed, AKA Godane or Mukhtar Abu Zubeir, five million for Khalaf and three other men, and $3 million apiece for two other leaders.

The announcement of the U.S. bounties came as Somali and other African military forces have begun to squeeze Shabaab into a smaller and smaller section of Somalia. In a statement, the Somali government said the rewards would help crush the al Qaeda affiliate.

"The announcement from the U.S. government . . . will certainly help the Somali government's efforts to end al Qaeda's reign of terror in Somalia," said Somalia's transitional government in a statement Thursday. "This is an important juncture in Somali history, where the possibility of full recovery from years of chaos is within reach."