Category: UK

  • Put a royal sock in it, Sarah

    Put a royal sock in it, Sarah

    Just when it seemed that things couldn’t get worse for the Duke of York, the Duchess offers her support. Judith Woods reports.

    Sarah Ferguson

    Who would want to be the Duchess of York’s PR this week? Short of being caught in a YouTube tryst with Charlie Sheen, snorting cocaine off a hooker in a hot tub, Sarah Ferguson’s stock could not conceivably sink any lower.

    At a time when her beleaguered, though still swaggering ex-husband, the Duke of York, is fighting for his future as Britain’s trade ambassador, her blunderingly gauche attempt to “support” him has merely piled Pelion on Ossa.

    In her latest intemperate outpouring the 51-year-old has querulously apologised for allowing the Duke to arrange a £15,000 payment from American billionaire and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein to help relieve her £5 million or so debts.

    She claims to be mortified that her actions have reflected badly on the man she admires most in all the world (the Duke, not Epstein) and has declared she would throw herself under a bus for her former husband. There are those in royal circles who are no doubt already revving up a Routemaster and wishing she would just get on with it.

    Being chums with the criminal class is highly dubious, but in truth, anyone casting aspersions on the Duke’s questionable judgment need look no further than the woman he married, still shares a house with (the Royal Lodge at Windsor) and to whom he remains bizarrely devoted.

    Needy, venal and entirely unencumbered with self- knowledge or native wit, the Duchess is yet again the architect of her own misfortune – less than a year after she was filmed in an uncover tabloid sting, seedily asking for cash in exchange for royal access.

    Her public declaration that she “abhors paedophilia” was so excruciatingly jejune it had half the nation involuntarily raising its hands mouthwards, in a subconscious attempt to vicariously gag her while the other half hastily logged on to www.republic.org to check if she were some sort of savant secretly committed to the downfall of the monarchy.

    But no, she is simply being Sarah. In 1994 a royal aide, Lord Charteris, famously referred to her as “vulgar, vulgar, vulgar” and was condemned as a snob. Fifteen years on, his pithy insight is to be applauded. According to the public relations expert Mark Borkowski, if nothing else, the Duchess is consistent.

    “She’s being true to her brand,” he says, simply. “She was a disaster when she was married to the oaf and she remains a complete car crash. She has a completely reckless willingness to engage with anyone who has her phone number: they call her, she spouts her mouth off and the rest is history.”

    Talk to long-standing friends and acquaintances and the Duchess’s verbosity becomes a leitmotif. The jolly garrulousness that once made her such refreshingly good company in the rather stilted atmosphere of Buckingham Palace has turned her into a liability.

    “Sarah is stupid and greedy which is a fatal combination, and she never knows when to keep her mouth shut,” is the harsh verdict of one royal insider who has known her for more than a decade.

    “She can be quite kind, but in recent times she just lives in her own little world and has no conception of the impact her behaviour will have until it all flies up in her face. The most frustrating aspect is that she never learns from her mistakes. Once upon a time, she had everything going for her and she botched it up.”

    Having married the Duke, then second in line to the throne, in 1986, the Duchess gave birth to two daughters, Princesses Beatrice, now 22, and Eugenie, 20. But she admitted to an American magazine in 2001 that the marriage began to disintegrate within a week (yes, a week) of the state ceremony because of her husband’s naval duties.

    The couple announced their separation in early 1992 and a few months later a set of unfortunate photographs was published in the press showing the American financial manager John Bryan sucking her toes, perhaps as a prelude to restructuring her portfolio.

    In the wake of her divorce in 1996, the Duchess spent much of her time in the United States, where she carved out a media career, wrote children’s stories and an autobiography and was in demand for commercial endorsements. America, the crucible of the confessional culture, appeared to be the perfect place for a woman who loved to talk about herself.

    Her publicised weight gain and weight loss led to a lengthy involvement as a spokeswoman for WeightWatchers, and there were adverts for cranberry juice and Avon and a chat show before she once again “botched” things up with the cash-for-access scandal and was immortalised bragging to a fake businessman that she could “open up any door you want” in return for £500,000.

    The Duchess subsequently admitted – on the Oprah Winfrey Show, where else? – that she had been drinking and was “in the gutter” at that moment. In Britain her reputation was in tatters, but across the Atlantic her tale of adversity still had any number of takers and it was rumoured that the wealthiest television star in the States had offered the down-at-heel duchess a prime-time chat show on her new Oprah Winfrey Network. Whether any such offer remains on the table after the Epstein scandal is a matter of conjecture. Winfrey is an ardent supporter of personal reinvention, but the Duchess of York’s bankability has limits.

    She may be a royal by marriage but she hasn’t been invited to the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton next month, which she might have been able to turn into a nice little earner (on second thoughts, perhaps that’s why she fell off the 1,900-strong guest list).

    “The way Sarah talks now is pure LA psychobabble,” says a source. “People here are flabbergasted that she somehow carries on, lurching from one catastrophe to the next. She’s always complaining about having no money, but then her creditors see her off skiing or holidaying in St Bart’s and it must be terribly galling for them. I’m sure she gets her share of freebies, but even so, she does flaunt her lifestyle even while she complains she can’t afford it.”

    Ingrid Seward, editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine, is less damning: “Sarah appears to have lost her centre,” she sighs, although “centre” sounds for all the world like a euphemism for “moral compass”.

    “But as far as the Royal family are concerned, this incident is just a blip; if Andrew has government support and the backing of the Queen – and I don’t think she’s going to ask him to fall upon his sword – then it will all blow over, because life has a habit of doing that.”

    Professor Bill Purdue, visiting reader in modern history at the Open University, remains sanguine about the impact of the Yorks’ scandal on public perceptions of the monarchy. “Junior royals have a tradition of going off the rails slightly,” he says. “Another Duke of York, George III’s son, Frederick Augustus Hanover, otherwise knows as the Grand Old Duke of York from the nursery rhymes, was mired in a major scandal when it was revealed his mistress was selling army commissions.”

    Last month the Royal Opera House raised the curtain on Anna Nicole, a kitschy production that met with critical acclaim. How much more fabulously surreal (not to say extravagantly trashy) would be Fergie: The Musical?

    The Telegraph

     

  • Is the U.S. dollar on the brink?

    Is the U.S. dollar on the brink?

    julianBy: Julian D. W. Phillips, Gold/Silver Forecaster – Global Watch

    Just take a look at the chart of the U.S. dollar Index and you see a frightening sight.   If it sinks any further its support will have evaporated.   We have watched all this week the gold price rise and look good in the dollar.   But in the euro it has barely moved.   Against the Swiss Franc the dollar looks so weak.   With the Technical picture looking so poor, one turns to the fundamentals to see if they conflict or support a downturn for the dollar.

    The U.S. dollar Fundamentals

    Can government govern finances?

    The United States, right now, is on the brink of having used up all its legislated credit capacity.   At $14.3 trillion there is a desperate need for a higher credit limit.   Unless, by Friday, they have passed legislation to raise this, the government cannot issue checks or pay staff.   Yes, they can use various tricks to delay this to accommodate political brinkmanship, but the outside world will be alarmed that the government is unable to tend to such basics or allows politics to overrule finances.   Here there is a clash of systems, the need for financial correctness against the games politicians play.   With President Obama’s administration without sufficient power to legislate as they want at a critical time when government should be strong, there is little to inspire confidence in the U.S. government.   Global confidence in the U.S. dollar will be shaken if such a financial mess were to happen.   We would most likely see the ratings agencies downgrade U.S. debt before that happens.   From outside it looks as though the U.S. is oblivious to foreign investor’s opinions at a time when the U.S. is reliant on foreign investors buying U.S. debt.

    Moving down the ladder we have seen so much in the press that individual States are on the brink of bankruptcy and some already there and little seems to be being done to rectify matters to date.   Or should foreigners just presume that the Fed will rescue them with bailouts?   If that is to be the path followed that again will undermine foreign investors confidence in the dollar.

    What needs to be understood is that government finances at all levels have to be sound to inspire confidence?   It seems to be a simple obvious statement, so why is it not being applied?   Even Fed Chairman Mr. Ben Bernanke is calling for government to sort out the Federal deficit but all we see is a partisan battle that seems oblivious to their countries crying needs.   Or do we misunderstand the scene.   Are politics more important than good order?   Today saw the revelation that China owns more than $360 billion of Treasuries than was thought to be the case.   Does the government not worry about this dependence?   Or does the government want to ensure that the dollar weakens?   This is a strong impression pervading so many foreign exchanges now.

    And the inflation coming from the food and energy worlds is globally pervasive and capable of threatening what little economic growth there is in the developed world.  It will affect many, many countries and could reach into the U.S.A.   We do expect the U.K to experience a shrinking of its GDP in the first quarter of 2011 announcing the arrival of a double-dip recession, so shrinking growth could also affect the U.S. still with its lackluster economy.   What will this somewhat emasculated government do then?

    The Trade Deficit

    For so many years now the U.S. has run a Trade deficit balanced by a surplus on the Capital account.   This inflow of capital is the flow of power from the U.S. to foreign creditors.   Already we are seeing a tendency to try to diversify away from the U.S. dollar.   If this trend gathers momentum then the overall picture on the Balance of Payments could sink to a deficit.   How close is it now?   Or is it happening as foreign investors diversify into other currencies to stave off or reduce the impact on their surpluses of a falling dollar and overweight natures of their dollar holdings.   It’s bound to happen if only because of prudence.   And yet the U.S. is doing nothing to address the situation, why not?   We see that the main beneficiary of a weak dollar would be the U.S. on the trade front as well as on the debt front.  So one question that needs an answer is, does the U.S. government want a weak dollar?   Or is the U.S. government unconcerned at the U.S. dollar’s exchange rate.

    Inevitable weakness

    It seems that Europe and other nations are more worried about the U.S. dollar exchange rate than the U.S. is.   This laissez-faire attitude appears to confirm that the U.S. has no intention of protecting the U.S. dollar’s exchange rate.   For that reason we have to conclude that the U.S. dollar is inevitably headed to more weakness.   In the past the ‘top dog’ nature of the U.S. currency meant that the rest of the world had to suck it up.   Now, it’s only a matter of time before the U.S. is second to China’s economy in the world.   By 202 the Chinese economy will have doubled and we have no doubt that the Yuan will be the world’s ‘top dog’ currency, eclipsing the dollar.   When that happens and it may be well before 2020, the dollar like all other global currencies will have to pay its own bills with goods not simply freshly printed dollars.

    The $ and the € Gold Price

    Is it any wonder then that the gold price is rising in the U.S. dollar.   The euro is, the Swiss Franc, the Pound and other currencies are rising in the dollar too.   It’s not the gold price rising in the dollar it’s the dollar falling in terms of gold.  Likewise other currencies are not rising against the dollar, the dollar is falling against them.

    To get a clearer picture of what is really happening in the gold price one has to look at the gold price in the euro or the Swiss Franc.   That will reflect demand and supply better.   We have and will see the gold price rise in the euro for fundamental reasons but for accuracy’s sake we have to relegate the dollar price of gold to second or third place, because that’s more about the dollar than about gold.

    Gold as part of the global monetary system

    Today we read that the shareholders of the Bank of Italy, the Italian banks want to use the gold held by the central bank to shore up their balance sheets.   The Bank of Italy has gold reserves of 2451.8 metric tonnes (68.6% of their foreign exchange reserves) at the moment.   As shareholders assets, by including these reserves at market value, Italian banks look a lot healthier.   Yes, this is a touch of ‘cooking’ the books, but it recognizes the fact that gold has a monetary value, recognized in the monetary world.   In inter-nation currency transactions gold is being used to secure loans.   It has a de facto role in the monetary system that is getting harder and harder to avoid.

    Could gold be confiscated?

    Of course gold will never be confiscated for the same reasons it was in 1933 [money supply expansion].   Its role today can be as collateral for international transactions, as we see it being used now.   In a global world it is the only real monetary asset that bypasses nations to be global money that is truly mobile.   Should a nation find itself in trouble, much like these Italian banks, then gold sits there waiting to shore up balance sheets and serve as collateral for international currency swaps for nations with questionable creditworthiness.   Will the dollar fall into that category once the Yuan is a truly international currency?   Certainly holding gold will bypass that eventuality.   Even in the hands of the U.S. government its citizen’s gold could give the dollar a golden hue.

    In China it is understood by all that all assets of the nation including citizen’s gold is the property of the state.   In the U.S. citizens are allowed the privilege of owning gold and don’t have the right.   How small a step to confiscating the huge tonnage of citizen’s gold wherever it is.

    news.goldseek.com, 1 March 2011

  • British SAS unit and diplomat ‘held’ by Libya rebels

    British SAS unit and diplomat ‘held’ by Libya rebels

    By CHRISTOPHER LEAKE

    An eight-man SAS team was being held by Libyan rebel forces last night after being captured as they accompanied a junior British diplomat on an undercover mission which ended in embarrassment.

    The elite troops had been escorting the diplomat through rebel-held territory in the east of Libya as he tried to make contact with opponents of Colonel Gaddafi.

    The diplomat had intended to pave the way for a more senior British official to establish diplomatic relations with rebel forces.

    SAS + Diplomat
    Joy: A rebel with a rocket-propelled grenade at Ras Lanouf yesterday

    But last night the young Foreign Office employee and his armed SAS escorts were locked up inside a military base in Benghazi, the largest city held by opponents of Col Gaddafi.

    More…

    • Ex-Met chief profits from £4million deal to train Libyan police… in Huddersfield
    • Former nightclub dancer reveals how she had a ‘crazy’ six-year fling with Gaddafi’s son and watched as he blew millions

    It is understood the SAS incursion into rebel-held territory infuriated opposition politicians, one of whom told them to warn David Cameron’s Government that it should recognise the opposition as Libya’s legitimate leaders before attempting to open negotiations.

    Sources admitted last night that there was huge embarrassment in Whitehall that the SAS mission had backfired.

    But there was confidence that the SAS team and the diplomat would be released unharmed within 24 hours after the rebels had made their point. There were no plans last night for a second SAS team to be sent in to secure the release of their colleagues.

    www.dailymail.co.uk, 6th March 2011

    SAS unit, diplomat ‘held’ by Libya rebels

    (AFP) – 6 March 2011

    LONDON — A Special Air Service (SAS) unit and a junior diplomat were being held by rebels in eastern Libya following a bungled mission to put the envoy in touch with them, The Sunday Times said.

    The broadsheet, citing sources, said the SAS unit, thought to be up to eight men, were captured along with the diplomat they were escorting through the rebel-held east.

    “We can neither confirm nor deny the report,” a Foreign Office spokeswoman told AFP.

    The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said: “We neither confirm nor deny the story and we do not comment on the special forces.”

    The uninvited appearance of the SAS alongside the diplomat “angered Libyan opposition figures who ordered the soldiers to be locked up in a military base,” the weekly said.

    Opponents of Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi “fear he could use any evidence of Western military interference to rally patriotic support for his regime,” it said.

    The newspaper said that according to Libyan sources, the SAS soldiers were taken by rebels to Libya’s second city Benghazi, held by the opposition, and hauled up before a senior figure.

    The Sunday Times said a British source, who confirmed the men had been detained, said the diplomat they were protecting had wanted to make contact with the rebels.

    It cited a source close to the opposition leadership as saying rebel officials were worried that Libyan people might think from the escort party that “foreign troops have started to interfere by landing in Libya”.

    British service personnel have already been involved in the rescue of British nationals working on oil installations in remote desert camps.

    The MoD said Saturday that about 200 troops had been placed on standby to help with evacuation and humanitarian operations in Libya.

    The troops from the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, are ready for deployment at 24 hours’ notice, a spokeswoman said.

    A YouGov poll of 2,413 adults conducted on Thursday and Friday for The Sunday Times found low support for using troops in Libya.

    It found that 69 percent supported economic sanctions on the Kadhafi regime and 56 percent favoured the imposition of a no-fly zone.

    However, only 12 percent backed providing arms to rebel forces and 11 percent agreed with sending in allied troops.

    Some 48 percent thought Prime Minister David Cameron has handled the Libyan uprising badly and 32 percent said he had handled it well.

    SAS unit ‘held by Libyan rebels’

    Defence secretary Liam Fox has confirmed that a British diplomatic team is in Libya talking to rebel forces.

    But he declined to comment on reports that the SAS unit guarding the team had been detained by forces opposed to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

    Interviewed on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Dr Fox said there was a “small diplomatic team” in the eastern city of Benghazi.

    “We are in touch with them but it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on that for reasons I am sure you will understand,” he added.

    Asked if the UK team was in danger, Dr Fox replied: “We are in touch with them but I’m not going to be giving further comment on that.”

    He added: “It is a very difficult situation to be able to understand in detail. There are a number of different opposition groups to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya who do seem relatively disparate. We want to clearly understand what the dynamic is here because we want to be able to work with them to ensure the demise of the Gaddafi regime, to see a transition to greater stability in Libya and ultimately to more representative government.

    “So getting a picture of that is relatively difficult as is widely reported. Communications are being interrupted, there are difficulties with mobile phones, with the internet potentially being interfered with.”

    According to the Sunday Times, up to eight British soldiers are believed to have been captured as they escorted the diplomatic mission through rebel-held territory in the east of the country.

    The mission is thought to have been an initial attempt to contact Gaddafi’s opponents ahead of a visit by a senior colleague to establish diplomatic relations, but the SAS intervention apparently angered the rebels.

    The situation came to light as the battle for control of the country continued to rage and fears grew over the impact of instability in the region on oil prices.

    London Evening Standard, 6 Mar 2011

  • LSE director resigns over Gaddafi links

    LSE director resigns over Gaddafi links

    An independent investigation into the London School of Economics’ links with Libya has been ordered after the university’s director resigned over the controversy.

    Sir howard davies

    Sir Howard Davies said the university’s reputation had suffered because of its ties to the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and that it had been a mistake to accept £300,000 research funding from a foundation controlled by the dictator’s son Saif.

    He admitted he made a “personal error of judgment” in travelling to Libya to advise the regime on how to modernise its financial institutions.

    The investigation, to be conducted by former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Woolf, will look in particular at the university’s links to Saif Gaddafi, who studied for an MSc and PhD there.

    There are claims he plagiarised his PhD thesis, which was awarded in 2008, using a ghost writer and copying parts of it from other material.

    In a statement, Sir Howard, a former head of the Financial Services Authority and deputy governor of the Bank of England, said: “I have concluded that it would be right for me to step down even though I know that this will cause difficulty for the institution I have come to love. The short point is that I am responsible for the school’s reputation, and that has suffered.”

    ITN

  • Coalition urged to act over lobbyists who use party groups ‘to buy influence’

    Coalition urged to act over lobbyists who use party groups ‘to buy influence’

    Investigation reveals more than £1.6m was channelled to MPs and lords in last year by corporations and interest groups

    James Ball

    Conservative MP Douglas Carswell
    Conservative MP Douglas Carswell says constituents should judge whether fringe benefits are legitimate. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian

    Corporations and interest groups have channelled more than £1.6m to MPs and lords in the past year through sponsorship of parliamentary groups, a Guardian investigation can reveal.

    Parliamentary reformers given access to the Guardian’s findings have called on the coalition government to take action to prevent all-party groups acting as “mere front groups for lobbyists to buy influence”.

    Westminster has more than 450 all-party political groups, semi-official entities around particular subjects or countries, ranging from groups on asthma and autism, to the parliamentary choir and rowing team.

    The Guardian has found 283 of these groups receive financial support from outside interests, including:

    • £60,000 support for the parliamentary choir from BT

    • £52,000 from drink and pub companies for the beer group

    • £16,000 for the parliamentary boat race from Siemens

    Other benefits are less quantifiable: the members of the all-party wine and spirits group, co-chaired by former Tory shadow minister Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and new Labour MP Ian Mearns, receive corkage, refreshment and wine tasting thanks to the largesse of the Wine and Spirits Trade Association. Some sporting groups, such as the athletics or rugby league groups, receive free tickets to matches.

    Benefits of a less indulgent nature are offered to the parliamentary slimming group, whose members include Ed Vaizey and David Amess: they are entitled to receive free Slimming World membership, worth £290 a year.

    Conservative MP Douglas Carswell, an outspoken advocate for parliamentary reform, says constituents should make the judgment on whether such fringe benefits are legitimate.

    “I don’t know whether it’s legitimate for companies to hand out, say, sports tickets to MPs,” he said. “But if my constituents can see clearly and easily what I have received, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The public will quickly rule what they think is acceptable. It’s for them to decide, not a group of Westminster grandees.”

    Some MPs and lords are more enthusiastic members of all-party groups than others. The Guardian’s investigation reveals for the first time which MPs sit on the most groups. Topping the chart is veteran Conservative Peter Bottomley, who is a member of 151 groups; 65 more than fellow Tory David Amess, who is second with 86 memberships.

    All-party parliamentary groups do more than just indulge members’ hobbies. Many produce reports or studies into their areas of interest, and the groups are also entitled to issue Parliamentary passes – which give the bearer open access to the palace of Westminster.

    The Guardian has found that last year 70 groups declared issuing passes to individuals “advantaged by the privileged access to parliament afforded by their pass”. One recipient is Robin Ashby, the director-general of the UK Defence Forum, who has been stripped of a parliamentary pass on two previous locations, although he denies ever having used a pass improperly.

    Other passes have gone to Aviva’s public affairs consultant, the parliamentary officer of the council for Arab-British understanding, the political officer of the Unite union and the public policy officer of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

    Even groups with a more serious purpose, such as the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, are often sponsored by vested corporate interest. The diabetes group received £28,000 funding for one of its reports from Japanese pharmaceutical company Takeda.

    The information technology group received more than £46,000 from companies including Vodafone, Motorola and Nominet, much of which funded annual dinners and receptions. Transport safety received £48,350 for unspecified purposes from a plethora of donors including 3M UK, Esure, Aviva, the Association of British Insurers, and the Royal Mail.

    Donations received by all-party groups are published on an online register, but as they are split across 485 pages in multiple categories, calculating the total influence on each group has previously been impossible. But the data website ScraperWiki wrote a computer script to collect the data in one place, allowing more detailed analysis of the register as at 23 December 2010. This also revealed for the first time that 45 groups are administered by professional parliamentary lobbyists, such as Quiller consultants, Luther Pendragon and Bell Pottinger Public Affairs.

    Several dozen more are administered by industry groups: the advertising group is administered by the Advertising Association; the food group by the Food and Drink Federation; Crossrail Ltd funds the secretariat for the Crossrail group, and even the group for the packaging manufacturing industry is administered by the packaging federation.

    Secretariat support can vary from a day a week’s support from a junior administrator to several employees working full-time to support a group’s function. All-party groups are not required to estimate the value of non-cash support – they need only include it on the register if they estimate its worth to be at least £1,500 a year – and so the full extent of sponsorship received by outside groups is still hidden from the public.

    “There’s a distinction to be made between legitimate lobbying and buying influence,” Carswell said.

    “MPs and Lords with a genuine interest in a subject gathering and talking to various lobbies is clearly a good thing. But others appear to be backed by blatant lobby groups – they are effectively a front for lobbies in parliament.

    Carswell added: “The coalition has promised to clean up politics. This is one area where they need to make a start.”

    www.guardian.co.uk, 24 February 2011


  • Immigrants face losing ‘lifeline’ English classes

    Immigrants face losing ‘lifeline’ English classes

    anna.davisAnna Davis, Education Correspondent

    Almost 40,000 adults learning to speak English in London colleges will be forced to give up because of funding cuts, it was revealed today.

    Money for the courses, which offer a “lifeline” for asylum seekers and immigrants, will be cut from September.

    The changes mean students would have to pay up to £1,200 each, the Association of Colleges said.

    Director of education policy Joy Mercer said the courses “have proved to be a lifeline for many people, including those on low incomes, their spouses, asylum seekers and refugees”.

    Currently the Government funds courses for those on “inactive benefits” such as income support and housing support. From September only those on “active benefits” such as jobseeker’s allowance, will get full funding.

    Others will pay half of the costs, which could be between £400 and £1,200.

    A survey of London colleges found 38,000 students would be affected.

    Ms Mercer said: “This would have a considerably negative impact on the ability of new citizens to progress to employment.”

    A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said the changes would not have a disproportionate impact on any particular group.

    He added that employers and students should contribute towards costs “when public funds are limited”.

    www.thisislondon.co.uk, 22 Feb 2011