Michael Jackson's doctor charged over pop singer's drugs death

Conrad Murray freed on $75,000 bail after pleading not guilty to involuntary manslaughter

Michael Jackson's doctor, Conrad Murray, was charged with involuntary manslaughter in Los Angeles yesterday in relation to the singer's death last year from a cocktail of drugs.

Murray, aged 57, pleaded not guilty just hours after being charged, and was released on bail of $75,000 (£48,000), and is due to reappear before the court on 5 April. The charge carries a jail term of four years.

The doctor has been under investigation almost since the singer's body was found at his home in Los Angeles in June last year.

Some Jackson fans shouted "murderer" as Murray entered the courthouse.

The doctor was appointed by Jackson appointed the doctor in May on a promise of $150,000 a month to help the singer through a series of comeback shows in London. Murray prescribed drugs to help the singer sleep, but insists there was nothing illegal in this.

The single charge against him claims he administered the powerful general anaesthetic propofol and two other sedatives "without due caution and circumspection" and "did unlawfully, and without malice, kill Michael Joseph Jackson".

Murray flew from his home in Houston to Los Angeles last week for negotiations between prosecutors and his lawyers on his surrender.

A coroner's report in August said Jackson had died from a cocktail of drugs, including propofol, which Murray has admitted administering. Propofol is often used as an anaesthetic in surgery, but was used on Jackson to help him sleep. The doctor administered the drug on the morning Jackson died, and then left the room. On his return, the singer had died.

The case will centre in the main on the use of propofol to help Jackson sleep, but also how long Murray stayed by his side immediately afterwards, while the drug took effect. Murray said he had left Jackson for two minutes to go to the bathroom.

Legal specialists said it could be a complicated and protracted case, with medical experts called by both sides to discuss the ethics of administering propofol.

Jackson's parents, Kathryn and Joe, were in court yesterday, along with his siblings LaToya, Jermaine, Tito, Jackie and Randy. Brian Oxman, Joe Jackson's lawyer, said some family members were disappointed that the doctor was charged only with involuntary manslaughter.

The Los Angeles district attorney's office said the deputy district attorney, David Walgreen, who is handling the attempt to extradite Roman Polanski in a child-sex case, will try the case. The district attorney's office credited the Los Angeles police and coroner's office for building the case against Murray. "Both agencies worked diligently and exhaustively to collect the evidence leading to the filing of the case," a statement said.

Bottles of propofol were in Murray's medicine bag and on the bedside table of Jackson's home.

Murray was employed by Jackson as he prepared for a series of 50 concerts aimed at reviving his career. The singer's career had been in steady decline after a series of allegations of child molestation that led to his arrest in 2003.

Jackson left an estate worth hundreds of millions and his death saw a new burst in sales of the star's music. A documentary film, Michael Jackson's This Is It, compiled from footage from rehearsals, earned nearly $260m.

• Michael Jackson
• United States

Afghanistan death toll exceeds Falklands as three UK soldiers die

Royal Scots Borderers and counter-IED task force soldier killed by blasts as Ministry of Defence warns of more casualties

Three British soldiers have been killed in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan in the last 24 hours, taking the total of fatalities in the conflict above the death toll of the Falklands war in 1982.

Two soldiers, from The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, part of the 3 Rifles Battle Group, died in an explosion near Sangin on Sunday evening. The third soldier to be killed was from 36 Engineer regiment, part of the counter-IED taskforce. He died on Monday morning in an explosion as he led a team conducting route clearance operations in the Nad-e-Ali district.

A total of 256 British servicemen and women have now died since operations in Afghanistan began in October 2001.

Lieutenant Colonel David Wakefield, spokesman for British forces in Helmand, said: "It is my sad duty to inform you that a soldier from 36 Engineer Regiment, part of the counter-IED taskforce, was killed by an explosion this morning in Nad-e-Ali district. He was leading a team conducting route clearance operations at the time, making the way ahead safe for others to follow. His indomitable courage and fortitude, the hallmark of his profession, will not be forgotten."

None of the soldiers was due to be involved in Operation Moshtarak, the biggest offensive against insurgents in central Helmand, which is about to be launched, the Ministry of Defence said.

Simon Weston, a Welsh Guardsman who suffered serious burns when his troopship, Sir Galahad, was bombed in the Falklands war, said: "For the Afghanistan death toll to reach that of the Falklands strikes me as very sad. It has taken a long time to get to this figure – over two years – and has been very dramatic for our boys and girls and the allies over there."

He said: "But you now have to ask yourself, how many more are going to die? Is it going to exceed the figure of Northern Ireland even?"

He said the troops should not be pulled out of Afghanistan if it meant a return to the Taliban's hardline regime. "We can't let the Taliban back in to conduct themselves the way they did before."

The defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, said: "We should not forget that each and every death of a member of our armed forces is a tragedy of equal proportion.

"We have seen an intense, hard and bloody period in Afghanistan but, as we prepare to consolidate our progress with the launch of Operation Moshtarak, it is imperative that we hold our resolve."

Ainsworth added: "Our presence in Afghanistan is vital in preventing it from once again becoming a haven for terrorists who would seek to threaten the UK."

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of defence staff, said: "Sad milestones such as this naturally attract attention in the UK,but in theatre our people continue resolutely and courageously assisting Afghans to build their future."

US and British military commanders have been briefing openly about Operation Moshtarak in the hope that Taliban fighters will either lay down their arms or flee. Taliban fighters have said they intended to defend the town of Marja, the first target for US and Afghan forces.

General Abdul Rahim Wardak, the Afghan defence minister, said in a statement: "On behalf of the Afghan government, the ANSF and the Afghan people, I would like to offer our sincere condolences to the families and friends of all those who have died. Their sacrifice was not in vain."

• Military
• Afghanistan

Letters: Banks, tax havens and corruption

I was both fascinated and disgusted by reports about BAE (6 February) but was not sure what shocked me most. Was it the bribery? Or the fact that BAE was and is peddling the tools of death? Or the fact that some of the systems they sold went to poor countries who had absolutely no need for such hi-tech equipment.

However, one aspect of your report especially clicked with me: that much of the illicit cash had been passing through intermediaries and bank accounts in various tax havens. If you want to tackle corruption, both in commercial fields and in governmental fields (eg the ministers of poorer countries skimming off money), then you need transparency, something which is made impossible by the existence of tax havens and offshore facilities.

Last year I seem to remember Gordon Brown and Barack Obama pledging to close down tax havens, and so I would be interested to know what progress they have made – especially progress regarding "home-grown" tax havens such as Delaware and the Channel Islands.

Action against these would be a significant coup both in the battle against corruption and the need to stop banks and other commercial organisations hiding their dealings in secretive locations.

Alan Searle

Cologne, Germany

• Some of the evidence heard at the US Senate investigation into overseas corruption (Report, 5 February) was cartoonish in its sleaziness, eg the gushing email from a US lawyer acting for Teodorin Obiang, son of Equatorial Guinea's president, which read: "Thank you very much for inviting me to the Kandy Halloween party at The Playboy Mansion and getting me the VIP treatment. I had an awesome time. I met many beautiful women, and I have the photos, email addresses and phone numbers to prove it."

But in spite of the entertainment value of these leaks, the issue at stake is intensely serious. Corruption and state looting, facilitated by irresponsible western banks, lawyers and other professionals, is condemning citizens of developing countries to abject poverty.

Global Witness has been campaigning for reform of banking regulation to prevent banks facilitating corruption, including through the introduction of proper safeguards and monitoring. Our report, The Secret Life of a Shopaholic, revealed how US banks allowed Obiang to bring $75m into the country between 2005 and 2007. Thankfully, the US authorities have started to act: we welcome their proactive response and look forward to hearing the outcome of the Senate investigation.

Shamefully, the UK government is yet to show willing, despite the demonstrated complicity of British banks in corruption. Rather than half-heartedly chiding bailed-out bankers on the size of their bonuses, the UK government should commit to urgently re-evaluate our financial system to ensure we are not providing a safe house for corrupt funds.

Anthea Lawson

Senior campaigner, Global Witness

• The BAE files
• BAE Systems
• Arms trade
• United States
• Serious Fraud Office
• Tax avoidance
• Banking

Letters: Banks, tax havens and corruption

I was both fascinated and disgusted by reports about BAE (6 February) but was not sure what shocked me most. Was it the bribery? Or the fact that BAE was and is peddling the tools of death? Or the fact that some of the systems they sold went to poor countries who had absolutely no need for such hi-tech equipment.

However, one aspect of your report especially clicked with me: that much of the illicit cash had been passing through intermediaries and bank accounts in various tax havens. If you want to tackle corruption, both in commercial fields and in governmental fields (eg the ministers of poorer countries skimming off money), then you need transparency, something which is made impossible by the existence of tax havens and offshore facilities.

Last year I seem to remember Gordon Brown and Barack Obama pledging to close down tax havens, and so I would be interested to know what progress they have made – especially progress regarding "home-grown" tax havens such as Delaware and the Channel Islands.

Action against these would be a significant coup both in the battle against corruption and the need to stop banks and other commercial organisations hiding their dealings in secretive locations.

Alan Searle

Cologne, Germany

• Some of the evidence heard at the US Senate investigation into overseas corruption (Report, 5 February) was cartoonish in its sleaziness, eg the gushing email from a US lawyer acting for Teodorin Obiang, son of Equatorial Guinea's president, which read: "Thank you very much for inviting me to the Kandy Halloween party at The Playboy Mansion and getting me the VIP treatment. I had an awesome time. I met many beautiful women, and I have the photos, email addresses and phone numbers to prove it."

But in spite of the entertainment value of these leaks, the issue at stake is intensely serious. Corruption and state looting, facilitated by irresponsible western banks, lawyers and other professionals, is condemning citizens of developing countries to abject poverty.

Global Witness has been campaigning for reform of banking regulation to prevent banks facilitating corruption, including through the introduction of proper safeguards and monitoring. Our report, The Secret Life of a Shopaholic, revealed how US banks allowed Obiang to bring $75m into the country between 2005 and 2007. Thankfully, the US authorities have started to act: we welcome their proactive response and look forward to hearing the outcome of the Senate investigation.

Shamefully, the UK government is yet to show willing, despite the demonstrated complicity of British banks in corruption. Rather than half-heartedly chiding bailed-out bankers on the size of their bonuses, the UK government should commit to urgently re-evaluate our financial system to ensure we are not providing a safe house for corrupt funds.

Anthea Lawson

Senior campaigner, Global Witness

• The BAE files
• BAE Systems
• Arms trade
• United States
• Serious Fraud Office
• Tax avoidance
• Banking

Read more [Guardian America]

Ukraine: Unhappy return

The presidential election in Ukraine was free, mostly fair, and the Russians kept their hands off the whole proceedings. In those important respects, the orange revolution that shook the nation five years ago has left its mark. But unfortunately for those who like happy endings, the wrong person won. Viktor Yanukovych, whose rigged election in 2004 triggered the mass protests in Kiev, is heading back to power as the duly and fairly elected president. The villain of the piece five years ago is the orange revolution's chief beneficiary.

Yanukovych's victory has set off much ­wailing and gnashing of teeth. But just as the expectations western governments had of the peaceful uprising five years ago were too great, so too today would it be an ­overreaction to say that the orange movement has been squeezed dry. The mass protests against post-Soviet authoritarianism were a genuine cry for cleaner government. And the result today is that Ukraine is the only country in the post‑Soviet space to hold free elections. It also has media free from state control (but not from the ­oligarchs who now own them); there is today a strong civic society, and a ­strengthened, though still ­fragile, sense of national identity. What failed the orange ­movement was the ­leadership it threw up.

For much of the last five years, the two leading lights of the orange movement, the out-going president Viktor Yushchenko and his prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, have been at loggerheads. Nothing, not even the humiliating 5.5% he received in the first round of voting, could deter the outward-bound Yushchenko from continuing his vendetta against his colleague, signing an amendment to the electoral law that was designed to disfavour her.

Theirs was not the only personal vendetta. Another candidate, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who won 7% in the first round, also urged his ­supporters to tick the vote-against-all box on the ballot sheet. Other nationalist candidates also refused to back Tymoshenko in the ­second round. It was, after all, under her watch as prime minister that the economy crashed by 15%. The result was that a million Ukrainians actively refused to back any candidate, nearly double the margin by which Tymoshenko lost. The person whom Tymoshenko fought hardest to bring on board ran a campaign which was independent of both leading candidates. ­Serhiy Tigipko came third in the first round and is now in a position to demand political favours from the new president. Disillusionment within the orange camp, not the malign hand of the ­Kremlin, has caused this defeat.

If and when Tymoshenko concedes defeat (and last night she came under pressure from international monitors), Yanukovych's first task will be to restore the economy, which is facing serious fiscal shortages. The currency has halved in value in two years. Much will depend on the quality of the people around the new president, and his ability to resist cronyism and corruption. Yanukovych will also attempt to bridge Ukraine's deep ethnic divisions. He is the choice of the Russian-speaking east and south, although his relations with Russian separatists in Crimea is cool. But the acid test of his presidency will be whether he can get the support of the Ukrainian-­speaking centre and west of the country.

The country is now set for a more pragmatic president, whose first foreign trip will be to Brussels rather than Moscow. This in itself will be progress. In his last months, the outgoing president Viktor Yushchenko began reinventing history, picking ever more controversial figures from history as Ukrainian heroes. His latest Hero of Ukraine was Stepan Bandera, a west Ukrainian nationalist and Nazi collaborator who was poisoned by the KGB after the war. Modern Ukraine does not need to delve into its harsh history for role models. It does, however, need a leader who can address the country's many present problems.

• Ukraine
• Russia

Sarah Palin's old-fashioned Palm Pilot

Sarah Palin had the notes for her speech in the palm of her hand - literally

We have all had occasion to write on our hand, either because no paper was available or because we knew we'd probably forget the bit of ­paper along with the thing we'd written on it (although if your memory's in that sort of shape, you probably won't be able to find a pen).

There is a big difference, however, between scrawling "bin liners" on the back of your hand before you go to the shops and reading off your palm on tele­vision, as ­Sarah Palin did during the Tea Party Convention at the weekend. Photographs of her speaking show one hand clearly decorated with crib notes. Close-ups ­reveal she'd written ­"Energy" and "Budget cuts". Then she had clearly crossed out "Budget" and written "Tax". ­Under that were the words "Lift American spirits". That last one is a bit cryptic, although it could be a ­reminder to shoplift a specific brand of cigarette later.

Palin didn't make use of what people are already calling the ­Hillbilly Palm ­Pilot during her speech, but she did make the mistake of waving it around as she ­criticised President Obama for using a teleprompter. She then rather obviously paused to consult it during a subsequent Q&A session.

She appears, however, to be an untutored cheat, incapable of reading surreptitiously and wholly unaware that you should always write your answers on the inside of the wrist below the sleeve line, or neatly along the sides of your fingers.

But she should have realised that this type of note-taking leaves no room for crossing-out; unless you're ambidextrous, you can't carry over to the other hand.

• Sarah Palin
• United States

Sarah Palin's old-fashioned Palm Pilot

Sarah Palin had the notes for her speech in the palm of her hand - literally

We have all had occasion to write on our hand, either because no paper was available or because we knew we'd probably forget the bit of ­paper along with the thing we'd written on it (although if your memory's in that sort of shape, you probably won't be able to find a pen).

There is a big difference, however, between scrawling "bin liners" on the back of your hand before you go to the shops and reading off your palm on tele­vision, as ­Sarah Palin did during the Tea Party Convention at the weekend. Photographs of her speaking show one hand clearly decorated with crib notes. Close-ups ­reveal she'd written ­"Energy" and "Budget cuts". Then she had clearly crossed out "Budget" and written "Tax". ­Under that were the words "Lift American spirits". That last one is a bit cryptic, although it could be a ­reminder to shoplift a specific brand of cigarette later.

Palin didn't make use of what people are already calling the ­Hillbilly Palm ­Pilot during her speech, but she did make the mistake of waving it around as she ­criticised President Obama for using a teleprompter. She then rather obviously paused to consult it during a subsequent Q&A session.

She appears, however, to be an untutored cheat, incapable of reading surreptitiously and wholly unaware that you should always write your answers on the inside of the wrist below the sleeve line, or neatly along the sides of your fingers.

But she should have realised that this type of note-taking leaves no room for crossing-out; unless you're ambidextrous, you can't carry over to the other hand.

• Sarah Palin
• United States

Read more [Guardian America]

Response: The military do more than fight – they protect our global interests

Aircraft carriers are floating pieces of British real estate, proclaiming us as a serious nation

Simon Jenkins's assertion that "the general is right and the admiral is wrong" misinterprets Britain's security needs (Naval nostalgia and edgy kit are no basis for sane defence, 20 January). The general, Sir David Richards, had "implicitly dismissed the navy and air force as strategically obsolete," wrote Jenkins. "He said they were obsessed with 'exotic capability that is rendered irrelevant by advances in technology'."

Everyone I meet across government and industry – including serving members of all three forces – agrees that, while Afghanistan is the priority, it's not the only game in town. Last week's green paper makes that point very clearly.

Afghanistan is a very small place relative to the rest of the world. The broader question is how do we protect our interests worldwide: you will always need to get your troops to wherever they do their jobs. You need to provide them with air cover and a base that can move, get them ashore quickly and resupply them for long periods.

Therefore ships – specifically aircraft carriers and amphibious ships – should not be seen as merely naval assets purely designed for state-on-state warfare. They are national assets capable of undertaking numerous roles simultaneously. "Big decks" give the nation strategic flexibility. They are floating pieces of UK real estate – airfields that you can move at will. They proclaim us as a serious nation that is confident and prepared to protect and promote its global interests.

Why wouldn't the army or the RAF want an asset which can carry Chinooks, attack helicopters, drones, humanitarian aid and thousands of troops at the same time? Call them cities of the sea, whatever you want, but they do not spend their time "cruising the world" on "goodwill visits", as suggested by Jenkins.

The military are, post-9/11, more than simply war-fighters. They provide "soft power" – the ability to influence events to our advantage from a diplomatic and economic perspective, and in this respect both the RN and the RAF provide far more flexibility and diplomatic options than do boots on the ground alone. Remember, Mr Jenkins, that we still have 14 overseas territories, global companies operating in far-flung parts of the world, globally competitive industries, and 92% of our trade coming by sea. How do you protect these interests with purely land-focused forces?

Jenkins says: "[Admiral Sir Mark] Stanhope's language shows how far his reach exceeds his budgetary grasp." Rubbish. The carrier programme is a £5bn acquisition for two ships that will serve 50 years – a mere £50m per ship, per year. I understand an average battalion has running costs of approximately £100m per annum. By any measure, both are cost-effective for what the UK gets in return.

I ask Jenkins this: as a nation do we want to pull up the drawbridge and withdraw to Fortress Britain; will it do any good anyway in this globalised world? Or are we confident in our abilities, visionary in our approach to diplomacy and commerce, and strong enough to back up "soft" power with the ultimate sanction of "hard" power? My gut feeling is that most people in this country still want Britain to be "Great".

• Military
• Defence policy
• Afghanistan

From the archive: American Diary: Tootsie and Gandhi

Originally published on 9 February 1983

It is Friday night in Philadelphia. The streets are uncomfortably quiet for a New Yorker. A car or two, a man stretched out on the sidewalk fast asleep beneath the watching eye of a bored policeman, ("He's here every night"), hardly a passer-by.

On the corner of Market and 12th Streets there is an unexpected crowd of people queueing for the cinema. But what really astonishes the New Yorker is the film for which they are lining up. Across the road, Dustin Hoffman's Tootsie is showing to a deserted house. Here there is Gandhi.

In Manhattan, Tootsie is the hit of the moment. In movie guides it is referred to as "a pungent commentary on contemporary sexual confusion," of which more later. In the little restaurants around Central Park, over glasses of chilled Chablis, it is the subject of long, serious discussions about its political relevance. Those who talk confidently of Dustin Hoffman's inevitable Oscar are puzzled by the Golden Globe nomination for Ben Kingsley as Gandhi (all too often referred to as Ben Who as What?).

The insularity of even educated Americans has often been remarked upon. It takes a film like this to bring it home. India might never have existed; Gandhi is yet more alien than E.T.

It cannot be said often enough that there is no way to absorb the misery of the Third World in newspapers whose fat advertising is a celebration of the American feast. It is often said that Americans no longer care; it is more likely that they cannot hear.

And thus we have Tootsie lauded as a social event and political breakthrough. The "suffering" of women, their bottoms caressed, their very names lost in a morass of "honey," "sweetie" and "tootsie" – this is ­suffering to be grasped easily against the din of advertising for Beefsteak Charlie's or the newest television commercial slogan.

And in this land of more, Tootsie is important not because it is charming and funny but because it exposes the horror of exploitation, namely of beautiful and educated women wondering not whether they will have dinner today, but with whom they will have it.

The joke is, of course, that Dustin Hoffman's character is the only interesting woman in the film. It may be the best of Hollywood but it is still Hollywood, that hold-out of pashas and concubines. It is a film conceived by men, concerned with men's feelings about women and thus designed to make men feel better. It is women through the distanced eyes of a small club of brilliant men – charming, safe and therefore infinitely discussable.

• United States
• Dustin Hoffman
• India

From the archive: American Diary: Tootsie and Gandhi

Originally published on 9 February 1983

It is Friday night in Philadelphia. The streets are uncomfortably quiet for a New Yorker. A car or two, a man stretched out on the sidewalk fast asleep beneath the watching eye of a bored policeman, ("He's here every night"), hardly a passer-by.

On the corner of Market and 12th Streets there is an unexpected crowd of people queueing for the cinema. But what really astonishes the New Yorker is the film for which they are lining up. Across the road, Dustin Hoffman's Tootsie is showing to a deserted house. Here there is Gandhi.

In Manhattan, Tootsie is the hit of the moment. In movie guides it is referred to as "a pungent commentary on contemporary sexual confusion," of which more later. In the little restaurants around Central Park, over glasses of chilled Chablis, it is the subject of long, serious discussions about its political relevance. Those who talk confidently of Dustin Hoffman's inevitable Oscar are puzzled by the Golden Globe nomination for Ben Kingsley as Gandhi (all too often referred to as Ben Who as What?).

The insularity of even educated Americans has often been remarked upon. It takes a film like this to bring it home. India might never have existed; Gandhi is yet more alien than E.T.

It cannot be said often enough that there is no way to absorb the misery of the Third World in newspapers whose fat advertising is a celebration of the American feast. It is often said that Americans no longer care; it is more likely that they cannot hear.

And thus we have Tootsie lauded as a social event and political breakthrough. The "suffering" of women, their bottoms caressed, their very names lost in a morass of "honey," "sweetie" and "tootsie" – this is ­suffering to be grasped easily against the din of advertising for Beefsteak Charlie's or the newest television commercial slogan.

And in this land of more, Tootsie is important not because it is charming and funny but because it exposes the horror of exploitation, namely of beautiful and educated women wondering not whether they will have dinner today, but with whom they will have it.

The joke is, of course, that Dustin Hoffman's character is the only interesting woman in the film. It may be the best of Hollywood but it is still Hollywood, that hold-out of pashas and concubines. It is a film conceived by men, concerned with men's feelings about women and thus designed to make men feel better. It is women through the distanced eyes of a small club of brilliant men – charming, safe and therefore infinitely discussable.

• United States
• Dustin Hoffman
• India

Read more [Guardian America]

Earlier springs could destroy delicate balance of UK wildlife, study shows

Global warming could be changing seasonal timing with profound consequences, according to analysis of 726 species of plants and animals

As snow flurries continued to cause disruption across the country today, spring may feel further away than ever. But recent winters have been ending earlier than ever before, according to a new assessment of Britain's wildlife that reveals global warming could be disrupting the delicate balance of nature.

The analysis confirms that spring and summer are occurring earlier, but also shows that this trend appears to be accelerating. The shift could pose problems for animals, birds and fish that rely on springtime flowering of plants to supply food for their young.

Stephen Thackeray, a biologist at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Lancaster, who co-led the research said: "This is about the desynchronisation of events during the year. Animals and birds time their reproduction to coincide with periods when there will be an abundance of food. If changes mean there is not enough food available then this could have negative consequences for their offspring."

The new study compiled 25,000 records of springtime trends for 726 species of plants, animals, plankton, insects, amphibians, birds and fish across land, sea and freshwater habitats. It analysed them for changes in the timing of lifecycle events, such as egg laying, first flights and flowering, a science known as phenology.

The results showed that more than 80% of trends between 1976 and 2005 indicated earlier seasonal events. On average, the study showed the seasonal timing of reproduction and population growth shifted forward by eleven days over the period, and that the change has accelerated recently.

Thackeray said: "This is the first time that data have been analysed with enough consistency to allow a meaningful comparison of patterns of changing seasonal timing in the UK among such a diverse range of plants and animals."

The study used records drawn from the work of thousands of volunteers who, as part of the UK phenology network, have made painstaking observations of the behaviour of wildlife in gardens and public spaces. It also relies on professional scientists, who have analysed habitats such as the plankton content of water drawn from lakes and coastal waters.

The research, published in the journal Global Change Biology, found large differences between species in the rate at which seasonal events have altered. Changes have been most rapid for many organisms at the bottom of food chains, such as plants and the animals that eat them. Predators have shown slower overall changes in the seasonal timing of their lifecycle events. This could spell problems, as the seasonal timing of reproduction is often matched to the time of year when food supply increases, so that offspring receive food needed to survive. A key question, the scientists say, is whether animals higher up the food chain can adapt to the faster rates of change in the plants and animals they feed on.

Sarah Wanless, who also co-led the research, said: "It is important to realise that this analysis doesn't identify which predator-prey relationships are most at risk from disruption due to changes in timing. What is does do is highlight that the recorded changes need urgent investigation, particularly for species with high economic or conservation importance."

Not all of the species showed a shift to earlier lifecycle events. Some, such as seabirds, now lay their eggs later in the year than they did before. But the scientists said the overall results show that climate warming is having an impact, and that the effect could get worse as temperatures continue to rise.

Richard Smithers of the Woodland Trust said: "Phenology is the canary in the cage. The results of this new study make real our changing climate and its potential to have profound consequences for the complex web of life."

Thackeray said it was difficult to generalise about how the changing climate has affected individual species across Britain, because most of the observations were for specific locations. One study found that oak trees were producing leaves 0.9 days earlier each year, while another found blue tits had changed their time of egg laying by 0.3 days a year. Other research found that hazel flowered a day earlier, and orange tip butterflies took their first flights 0.7 days earlier.

The study involved scientists from 12 UK research institutions, including Butterfly Conservation, Freshwater Biological Association, People's Trust for Endangered Species and the National Pollen and Aerobiology Research Unit at the University of Worcester.

Many of the organisations have now started follow-on research to see which species could be negatively affected by the change in timings and what could be done to help.

Writing in the journal, the scientists warn: "If current patterns and rates of phenological change are indicative of future trends, future climate warming may exacerbate trophic mismatching, further disrupting the functioning, persistence and resilience of major ecosystems and having a major impact on ecosystem services."

• Wildlife
• Climate change
• Biodiversity
• Animals
• Birds
• Insects
• Conservation
• Marine life
• Plants

Iran moves closer to nuke warhead capacity (AP)

AP - Iran pressed ahead Monday with plans that will increase its ability to make nuclear weapons as it formally informed the U.N. nuclear agency of its intention to enrich uranium to higher levels.

Venezuela declares emergency amid energy crisis (AP)

AP - President Hugo Chavez has signed a decree declaring an energy emergency in Venezuela to facilitate his government's efforts to ease severe energy shortages.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Man dies after Manawatu collision

One man is dead and another seriously hurt after two vehicles collided at Longburn, on the outskirts of Palmerston North, this morning.The crash happened just after 9am on Works Road, Longburn.Police said it appeared a Toyota...
Read more [New Zealand Herald]

Europe loses seat at top table

In Washington they're not sure who's in charge. In Brussels they're squabbling. Ian Traynor reports on the EU's crisis of confidence

Sitting in parkland in the shadow of the European parliament, the Bibliothèque Solvay is that rare thing in Brussels's dismal European quarter – a pretty building.

But when heads of government or state from 27 countries meet here on Thursday under their new president, Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium, they will have little time for the art nouveau fittings or for the old books lining the wood-panelled walls of the 1902 library.

The first EU summit under Van Rompuy's stewardship sees Europe slumped in a mood of unusually persistent gloom. Van Rompuy, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and the rest are in charge of a Europe engulfed by a sense of defeatism and decline and exhausted by nine long years of trying to construct a new European regime. The reasons for the ennui are clear. According to senior officials, analysts, and diplomats in Brussels, Paris, London and Berlin, Europe suddenly seems to matter a lot less in the world. Additionally, its leaders appear unsure of how to tackle their single currency's biggest ever crisis, and are engaged in petty power struggles and point-scoring over how to use the EU's new rulebook – the Lisbon treaty.

"There are a lot of blame games," said a senior European diplomat. "A lot of handwringing and bitching. No one is coming through to lead. It's not a pretty picture at all and it looks pathetic to the rest of the world."

Since EU leaders last met in Brussels before Christmas, the mood has soured. For the Europeans who claimed for two years to be leading the world on climate change, the global warming summit in Copenhagen was the gamechanger, a moment when the global balance of power tilted and relegated the EU to the second division.

"What we saw in Copenhagen is that Europe does not count," Daniel Gros, director of the Centre for European Policy Studies, told a conference of Brussels thinktanks.

"For good or for ill," a senior European official told the Guardian, "the message that Copenhagen sent is that Europe is not at the table. The fact of the matter is that Europe's leaders were taking a coffee and [Barack] Obama visited them at the coffee break. But he negotiated with others."

The Europeans are struggling to recover from that blow.

For the past 18 months, the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, has been warning that Europe faces being sidelined in a "G2" world run by the US and China unless the EU steps up.

Miliband's worst fears materialised when Obama held his press conference at the end of Copenhagen and deleted Europe from the script.

"If the G2 world was approaching, suddenly there it was," said the diplomat. "A seminal and symbolic moment."

In the library on Thursday, Van Rompuy is to hold a postmortem. What went wrong and what are we going to do about it, he will ask his fellow national and EU leaders. The way they have written the script, Van Rompuy himself, as the first permanent president of the European council, is part of the solution. Most others are not so sure.

The former Belgian prime minister's rise is the product of the Lisbon treaty, which in turn is a wordier and more complex version of the ill-fated European constitution which had to be binned because of voter rejection in France and the Netherlands.

The treaty came into force in December and is supposed to cure Europe's malaise by streamlining decision-taking, simplifying procedures, boosting common foreign policy, and supplying strong and coherent leadership.

It is early days, but the new regime has started not with a bang but with a whimper. Where there was to be coherence, there is confusion. Where there was to be clear leadership, there are turf wars and rival presidents.

Obama announced last week he was too busy for a slated summit with the Europeans in Madrid in May. When Mongolia's leader, Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj, visited Brussels last week he was nonplussed by the plethora of "European presidents" whom protocol prescribed he must meet (there are currently four).

The US state department made plain that one reason for Obama's absence is that, under Lisbon, it was not clear with whom the Americans should be dealing.

Matthias Matthijs, a Washington-based academic who is visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University's Bologna Centre, said the post-Lisbon fiasco over who is in charge may take a year to sort out. "There is a sense in Washington that Europe needs to get its act together," he said. "It's another missed opportunity for Europe. They do not have anyone to put on the world stage."

That person is supposed to be Van Rompuy or Catherine Ashton, the new EU foreign policy chief also created by the Lisbon treaty.

But no one appears to have told the Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who took on the rotating six-month presidency of the EU last month determined not to forfeit any of its perks and privileges to Van Rompuy who, under the Lisbon terms, chairs all summits of EU leaders.

The Spanish government website bragged that the Obama summit in Madrid in May would be a highlight of its presidency, though it forgot to consult the Americans. In addition, in the next four months alone, the Spanish have scheduled themselves to host as many as 10 EU summits with other parts of the world.

This appetite for summitry sits oddly with perceptions of European weakness. But it is of a piece with the European insistence on disproportionate attendance at the big global pow-wows.

In the three G20 summits of the past 18 months called to tackle the financial crisis, Europeans have taken up eight of the 20 places, seeming to confuse status and numbers with power. There is one place each for the Americans and Chinese, while the Europeans were represented by the Germans, British, French and Italians, plus José Manuel Barroso, president of the European commission, plus whoever had the rotating EU presidency (the Swedes or the Czechs). Then the Spanish and the Dutch, neither formal members of the G20, clamoured for invitations and were given seats.

"It's ridiculous," said Antonio Missiroli of the European Policy Centre in Brussels. "One third of the G20, a half of the G8, almost one half of the UN security council. There are too many Europeans."

Amid this crowded field of leaders, leadership itself is at a premium. Increasingly in Europe, particularly as a result of the Lisbon treaty and the uninspiring choice of Van Rompuy and Ashton as the EU's summit and foreign policy chiefs, power lies in national capitals.

Diplomats and analysts complain that those national leaders are not up to the task of pooling authority and projecting power effectively on the world stage – another purported aim of the Lisbon regime.

Of the figures who matter most, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has been invisible since winning a second term last autumn. Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi raises only smirks. Gordon Brown is credited with trying hard on the world financial crisis but is seen as a lame duck, while it is feared across the EU that David Cameron and William Hague, by contrast, will conspire to subvert rather than project European leadership. The sole figure to command respect for his political will and energy is Nicolas Sarkozy of France. But he is also viewed warily as too mercurial.

Cameron shock

EU diplomats expect a prime minister Cameron to try to boost the "special relationship" with the White House at the expense of European power. They add he could be in for a shock since the Obama administration could tell Cameron that the best thing he could do to support America is to get more engaged in strengthening the EU.

Günter Verheugen, Germany's outgoing European commissioner, painted a picture this week of tired strategic division, confusion, and hesitancy at the heart of Europe.

"Within the EU there is no idea of where they're going. There's no agreement on what the borders of the EU should look like one day and no agreement on how to define our role in the world," he told Der Spiegel news magazine. "We want the Americans to take us seriously as partners. But first we need to work on our capacity for partnership … The Americans expect more global engagement from us, but we're not ready for that."

On Afghanistan or Iran, say senior diplomats, the Europeans are at odds and almost certain to frustrate any hopes in Washington of common, tough, and risky policies.

The backdrop to the black mood in Brussels is economic. The fallout from the banking collapse in the form of colossal public debt levels and budget deficits is tying the hands of governments. The short-term troubles are coupled with the longer-term scenario of shrinking and ageing populations, a Europe condemned to genteel and geriatric decline while the emerging economies boom.

Hopeful noises

"We face fiscal challenges never seen before, of an unprecedented magnitude," said Jean Pisani-Ferry, director of the Bruegel economics thinktank.

Optimism is rare. It exists, but tends to be the preserve of outsiders watching the EU. To discern more hopeful noises, you have to cross the Atlantic.

US economists and Nobel laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz appear sanguine about Europe, with Krugman arguing recently in the New York Times that the European welfare state and social market economy have survived the financial crisis well and represent a more successful and enviable model than America's.

Steven Hill, a director at the Washington-based New America Foundation, has just published a book, Europe's Promise, which argues that "the European way is the best hope in an insecure age".

He dismissed talk of the EU being "marginalised" in a G2 world. On the contrary, he emphasised that the Obama White House was under pressure from the EU on climate change and financial regulation. "This, of course, is the exact opposite of the view that 'Europe is irrelevant'. Europe is actually hyper-relevant," he said. "Obama knows that Europe is leading in these ways, and he would like to follow to some extent, but he is having a hard time delivering."

Such views appear Panglossian to the gloom-mongers of the continent. According to French political philosopher Pierre Manent, Europe is a fair-weather union which "vanishes into the horizon" in a crisis. "We only look to Europe when everything is going well," while the "outside world views the EU as a union of decadent imperialists who make a virtue of their powerlessness," he said in a recent lecture.

On Thursday, Van Rompuy hopes to reverse this drift towards perceived impotence by locking the leaders in the library and knocking heads together.

He hopes that the humiliation at Copenhagen and other setbacks can serve as a wake-up call.

Additional reporting by Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Lizzy Davies in Paris

The battling bosses

Laying claim to the championship title of European president is a bit like sorting out who rules as world heavyweight boxer, quips a senior European diplomat.

In the ring, there's the WBA and the WBC, the IBA or the WBO, all laying claim to be honouring the true heavyweight champion of the world and usually begging to differ.

In the EU, thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, we now have the European council president, Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium, as well as the European commission president, José Manuel Barroso of Portugal, starting a second five-year term. Then there is the residual rotating six-month EU presidency, held since last month by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, prime minister of Spain. And finally, there is Jerzy Buzek, a former Polish prime minister who is president or speaker of the European parliament.

The early impact of the Lisbon regime has been embarrassing, generating lots of heat and little light. Rather than a seamless transition to a new and simple regime of identifiable power vested in one person, there is bickering, brinkmanship and unclear lines of authority.

Famously, if apocryphally, Henry Kissinger said he did not know who to call if calling "Europe". The Lisbon Treaty was supposed to settle that. Instead, the answer remains as clear as mud.

Van Rompuy answers to EU heads of government and organises and chairs all their summits. His first, especially convened by him, is in Brussels on Thursday. But he is being undermined by Zapatero, who wants to make the most of his six months as EU president. He has called 10 bilateral EU summits with other parts of the world, to be held in Spain, although they are now all supposed to be under Van Rompuy.

Barroso, head of the commission, or EU executive, and the Belgian are also said to be squabbling over powers, budgets, and assets.

The optimists say the new regime will take a while to bed down, but will then function smoothly and more effectively. The pessimists say the new regime took so long to agree – almost nine ill-starred years – that it is already past its sell-by date, but that no one has the stomach to suggest anything better.

The outcome is there is no heavyweight champion at all. Europe is punching well below its weight.

Ian Traynor Brussels

• European Union
• Euro

Paperwork Hinders Airlifts of Ill Haitian Children

Doctors and aid workers are wrestling with the burden of proving that they are not illegally transporting children, whose risk of dying is rising while the paperwork awaits.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Haitians confront new threat: deadly spring rains (AP)

AP - Survivors of Haiti's catastrophic earthquake have had one saving grace: There's been no significant rain since the disaster. But that won't last.

E.U. Slow to React to Toyota Safety Problems

The first problems with sticking accelerators in some Toyota models surfaced more than a year ago in Britain and Ireland. But it was only Friday - long after a global recall began - that the European Commission issued its first alert.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Chrysler pledges $550M to build Fiat 500 in Mexico (AP)

AP - Chrysler Group LLC says it will invest $550 million to build the Fiat 500 minicar at its assembly plant near Mexico City.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Ukraine awaits Tymoshenko concession or legal fight (Reuters)

Reuters - Ukraine waited for Yulia Tymoshenko Tuesday to contest a weekend presidential election or concede defeat and allow the winner, Viktor Yanukovich, to start piecing together a governing coalition in parliament.

Ukraine Opposition Leader Appears to Win Vote

Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko refused to concede the presidential election to Viktor F. Yanukovich.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

I.Coast at risk of civil war: ex-rebel (AFP)

AFP - Violent protests over alleged fraud in Ivory Coast's voter lists have put the west African nation at risk of civil war, the spokesman of the ex-rebel New Forces (FN) warned Monday.

Sri Lanka Arrests Defeated Candidate

Sri Lanka arrested the former army commander and presidential candidate General Sarath Fonseka on Monday, for what the army said were military offenses.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

Fresh calls for Iran sanctions

France and US say sanctions only option after Iran says it will step up uranium enrichment.
Read more [Al Jazeera]

Tehran's nuclear glue | Meir Javedanfar

Efforts to boost uranium stockpiles are aimed at internal and external challenges to the regime

Iran's nuclear programme was started under the Shah. He wanted the bomb to transform Iran into a Middle East superpower. For many Iranians, however, the real need for nuclear armament was most keenly felt after Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and civilians during the eight-year war between the two countries in the 1980s. Iranians felt helpless, at the mercy of the Butcher of Baghdad and without any way to deter him – with barely a whimper of criticism heard from the west against his abuses of international law. As someone who lived then in Iran, I remember those days vividly. One of my Muslim friends however, saw me, his Jewish neighbour, as his protector. Why? As far as he was concerned, Saddam did not care about killing Muslims. But Saddam would think twice before risking the death of thousands of Jews by dropping chemical weapons on Tehran, my friend reasoned, because Israel could obliterate him in response. The sense of irony and pride that my Shia Muslim friend felt protected because my family were living near him in a Tehran neighbourhood has never left me.

Today, numerous Iranians are all for nuclear technology in order to produce electricity to meet their country's 8% annual increase in demand for energy. Although their country has abundant gas and oil supplies, they would prefer to export it and use the income to develop their country's infrastructure.

But do not imagine that thinking underpins the Iranian leadership's latest call, on Sunday, to accelerate enrichment of its uranium stockpile. Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's main motivation for following the current nuclear policy is to keep Iran isolated. The thinking among Tehran ultra-conservatives is that by raising the ire of the west and keeping Iran isolated from the rest of the international community, it will be easier for them to crack down against opposition at home. Khamenei's second priority is his hope that, once Iran becomes a nuclear power, nobody would dare attempt regime change from the outside.

With the leadership sensing mounting pressure, more than ever it wants to pursue the nuclear programme. To Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this programme is one of the only examples of progress made under the revolution. As the 31st anniversary approaches, and Iranians look at their country, they see that in a majority of cases it has gone backwards. It is a poorer country. Corruption is more common. Increasing numbers of educated Iranians prefer to leave their country. They carry the third most worthless currency in the world, while getting foreign visas with an Iranian passport has become an even more miserable experience. The nuclear programme remains the one area where the government believes it can show progress. With everything else in such a sorry state, trumpeting its success has become an important tool in claiming support and legitimacy.

There is also the question of longevity of the revolution. Iran's refusal to accept the terms of the recent deal offered by the international community – which called for Iran to first ship 75% of its ­uranium abroad, and then to receive it back in the form of nuclear fuel – has more to do with domestic politics. Khamenei is worried that such a deal would boost Obama's image in Iran.

The reality of a black US president with the middle name Hossein has ­neutralised years of claims by the post-revolution Iranian government that America is a racist, anti-Islamic state. Unhelpfully for Khamenei, the name Obama can also be pronounced as oo–ba–ma, meaning "he is with us" in Farsi. All these factors have endeared the US more than ever to the people of Iran. The last thing Khamenei wants is to boost America's image by reaching a deal; in doing so his regime could lose the anti-American glue that it ­increasingly relies on to hold it together.

Sunday's announcement is unlikely to be the last; many more such ­provocative policies should be expected from Tehran in the coming months. The more threatened the regime feels ­internally the more it will try to provoke the west.

Although the west, especially Israel, has every right to feel threatened, it would also do well to remember that it faces a weakened regime, which is losing legitimacy every day, and is beset with infighting on an unprecedented scale.

The response, where possible, should be measured. Although sanctions seem inevitable, they should target the regime. And if President Obama is ­looking for a double blow, he should also remove sanctions against the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran, which are making life very difficult for ­Iranians. Improving the image of the west among ordinary people, while singling out the rulers, is a double punch which the regime could find extremely difficult to recover from. Perhaps more so than a military attack.

• Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
• Nuclear weapons
• Iran
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Police identify crash cyclist

Police have identified a seriously injured cyclist who was involved in a Wanganui road crash last night.The crash was about 11.25pm, when a red Mazda Eunos and the cyclist collided when travelling in the same direction on Jones...
Read more [New Zealand Herald]

Brown stands firm as Afghan toll passes Falklands (AFP)

AFP - Britain vowed to stand firm in Afghanistan Monday after the death toll reached the number killed in the 1982 Falklands war -- amid warnings of a new surge in casualties as a new onslaught is launched.

Top Canadian military official charged with murder (AP)

AP - The commander of Canada's largest Air Force base, who once flew dignitaries around the country, has been charged with first-degree murder in the deaths of two women.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Afghan drug capital is U.S. target in coming offensive (McClatchy Newspapers)

McClatchy Newspapers - KABUL, Afghanistan — The U.S.-led offensive that's expected to start soon in southern Afghanistan's Helmand province will be a battle not only against the Taliban but also against an insurgent-backed narcotics trade that provides a livelihood for thousands of residents.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Yanukovych 'to win Ukraine poll'

Ukraine's pro-Moscow Viktor Yanukovych will win presidential elections, officials say, but PM Yulia Tymoshenko is defiant.
Read more [BBC Europe]

Iran’s Nuclear Plans Prompt New Calls for Sanctions

After Iran notified the U.N. nuclear agency of plans to enrich its uranium, officials from the U.S., France and Russia called for stronger measures against Tehran.
Read more [International Herald Tribune]

ABC dismisses 'ludicrous' China pressure claim

ABC dismisses claims it did not screen a controversial documentary because of pressure from China.
Read more [ABC News Australia]

Ex-mayor absolved in journalist's slaying in Peru (AP)

AP - A Peruvian court on Monday absolved the former mayor of a jungle city in the 2004 killing of a reporter who accused him of cocaine trafficking.
Read more [Yahoo World News]

Smoking banned in Melbourne shopping strips

A Melbourne council is launching a new crackdown on cigarettes, banning smoking in three outdoor shopping strips.
Read more [ABC News Australia]

Passenger accused of aiding reckless driving

Police are taking the unusual step of charging the driver and passenger of a car chased by police through Hamilton early today.The pursuit began shortly after midnight when the Nissan Skyline car was seen by a police patrol doing...
Read more [New Zealand Herald]