We are lined up in two rows in a freezing village hall in Warwickshire celebrating the spring bean planting. Beside me are a retired publisher, an insurance salesman and an electrical engineer. We are wearing top hats and we carry broom handles.

A woman who campaigned tirelessly against guns, knives and gang culture was stabbed to death in a frenzied attack carried out by her own grandson, a court was told yesterday.

What is genetic health testing?

A prison governor and his deputy face disciplinary action after a report into the suicide of an inmate found that prison staff could have done more to prevent his death.

Genetic tests that can detect a raised risk of breast, ovarian and prostate cancer are being offered for the first time to people without family histories of the diseases, The Times has learnt.

When she was 20 years old and the war had just ended, Helen Bamber went into Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in Germany to help with the rehabilitation of survivors who had been seriously traumatised by torture, hunger and the murders of their spouses, friends and children.

The birth of Britain's first baby screened to ensure that it was free of the breast cancer gene carried by a parent was hailed yesterday as an important advance in the fight against genetic disease.

It was when I read a letter from a Times reader last month that I felt we'd turned the corner. “The Times has wonderful diagrams,” John Riddall, from Derbyshire, wrote. “Rarely was a diagram more needed than to illustrate the working of the elephant pump. I wonder whether you could publish a diagram as part of the continuing publicity for the appeal?”

The day Tom left his family's terraced house in Leamington Spa for the last time was, his mother later recalled, nothing special. He was midway through his A levels and spending a lot of time on the computer - but that was normal. In fact, Barbara Weed thought that in recent weeks her sometimes fraught relationship with her son had improved. “He seemed more cheerful,” she said. “But I now realise that was because he had decided to leave.”

There was no evidence of breast cancer in my family, but then, it is only in the past generation that we have all become so much more open about talking about these things. It used to be something that you would keep quiet about. Talk about having cancer, and you would lose your job. Or your fiancé, if it looked like you were not good breeding stock.

Robert Rubin, the former US Treasury Secretary, resigned from Citigroup yesterday after months of criticism for the role he played in leading to the brink of collapse what was once the world’s largest bank.

For anyone “cool” - i.e. long-haired boys in suede jackets - the Now! series is the epitome of cultural nullity; constructed of equal parts plastic and evil. I am personally talking about the boys of 1990, but this is how the “cool” boys have received the Now! album from its inception, in 1983, up until the present day. For “alternative” boys, the purchase of Now! is the mark of shame - the province of a rock philistine who has probably never heard Dylan's Basement Tapes, let alone read the lyrics while smoking a fag and looking thoughtful. Now! is the province of, to be frank, girls.

Times readers have helped to raise almost £1 million for this year's charity appeal, making it our most successful. But charities face a tough year so we want to pass the £1 million mark so that our three good causes can carry on their work.

Vince Cable is the oracle, the nation's favourite guru for the recession. The Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman has risen above party politics. There is a Facebook appreciation society called Cable So Able. Alan Duncan, the Tory business spokesman, describes him as the “holy grail”. Even Jeremy Paxman treats him with respect.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is not something that parents embark on lightly or for trivial reasons. For each potentially risky and emotionally draining procedure undertaken, there is only a one-in-four chance that an unaffected baby will be born. Put more starkly, three out of four attempts will end in failure.

The son of village postmaster was shot dead and his father seriously injured by a gang suspected of carrying out a string of raids on rural businesses.

He is the ultimate DJ, the man whose ear for a hit has produced the best-selling album series in British pop. But as Now That's What I Call Music! celebrates its 25th birthday, Ashley Abram, who has sole power to choose the tracks, is happy to let the stars hog the spotlight.

Time is running out for Blu-ray discs, the high definition (HD) format that are supposed to be replacing the DVD.

A teenager was paid £50 by a “fixer” employed by the BBC to brandish guns on a Panorama programme about young gangs.

Lundi

A flurry of ice crystals and a rattling chainsaw marked the start of London’s first ice-sculpting festival.

There’s not a lot of information to be found about YourNight.com, a currently invite-only portal that’s slated for launch this quarter, but the information we’ve received about its parent company Extreme Enterprises raising a relatively small amount of cash for a valuation of tens of millions of dollars made us curious, so we looked a little closer.

Here’s what we know about the service: YourNight.com will be publishing “dozens of internal search engines in an array of online services located within one portal”, and ultimately hopes to give “every person and business in the world a free web presence, multiple free search engine placements, free advertisement, and free entertainment from TV, radio, email, chat, games, networking, dating & more ...”

The company is certainly ambitious enough, openly boasting about becoming a serious threat to “companies such as Google, Yahoo, MySpace, eBay, Amazon, Yellow Pages, Microsoft and several more” and billing itself as “The World’s Largest Interactive Entertainment, Information & Shopping Search Portal”. Last December, EEI even put out a press release about receiving a $30 million valuation based on a stock purchase to the tune of $180,000 for 0.6% ownership made by PlanLogix, a software development company that’s going to be working on YourNight.com. Since its inception in 2004, EEI has reportedly raised over $2.5 million in private equity investments, both cash and in-kind, still according to the release.

A couple of familiar names pop up in the story as well: one of the investors is Mike Alstott, the recently retired Tampa Bay Buccaneers Super Bowl champion and six-time Pro Bowl star. George Wendt, that would be the actor who portrayed Norm in the sitcom “Cheers”, is a family member to the founder of EEI and is expected to be endorsing the company, with the terms still in negotiation. Then there’s attorney Ken Keefe, a former U.S. Diplomat and ex-President of Eupen Cable USA who will be assuming the role of President / CLO for the company.

And then there’s this bizarre gem, straight from the press release:

EEI recently announced its nationwide search for a CTO. Starting from the top, EEI has contacted Aber Whitcomb, current MySpace CTO, as well as Sean Parker, Founder of Napster and Former President of FaceBook. “No offers have been agreed upon yet so the search continues”, says EEI CEO RJ Garbowicz.

The press release also states that the company will ‘let its purpose and presence be known’ as soon as they reach their goal of raising a Series A capital round of $10 million.

We’re very curious about the upcoming launch and future of this one.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

A January 9 Wall Street Journal editorial opposing legislation to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber ignored the effect of the Ledbetter decision on employees who were unaware for long periods of time that they had received lower pay due to discrimination. In fact, the decision penalizes such employees by preventing them from suing after a statutory period, even if they continue to receive lower pay and even if they do not learn they are being discriminated against until long after the initial act of discrimination.

The editorial stated, "The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is an effort to overturn a 2007 Supreme Court decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber. Lilly Ledbetter had worked for Goodyear for almost 20 years before retiring. Only in 1998, after she took her pension, did she sue and allege wage discrimination stretching back to the early 1980s. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against her, noting the statute [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] clearly said claims must be filed within 180 days, or sometimes 300 days, of the discrimination." According to the editorial, the Ledbetter decision "put to rest Ms. Ledbetter's creative theory that decisions made decades ago by a former boss affected her pay all the way to retirement, so that each paycheck was a new discriminatory act and thus fell within the statute of limitations."

But according to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent in Ledbetter, the case harms employees who are unaware that pay discrimination has occurred for a prolonged period of time. Ginsburg stated that a plaintiff's longtime lack of knowledge that discrimination has occurred is not unusual in pay discrimination cases, pointing out that in the case at hand, the employer, Goodyear, "kept salaries confidential; [and] employees had only limited access to information regarding their colleagues' earnings."

Ginsburg later added that if the pay discrimination occurs in the form of a woman receiving a smaller pay raise than her male counterparts, it may be impossible for a woman to sue when the discrimination first occurs: "She may have little reason even to suspect discrimination until a pattern develops incrementally and she ultimately becomes aware of the disparity. Even if an employee suspects that the reason for a comparatively low raise is not performance but sex (or another protected ground), the amount involved may seem too small, or the employer's intent too ambiguous, to make the issue immediately actionable -- or winnable."

From Ginsburg's opinion:

Pay disparities, of the kind Ledbetter experienced, have a closer kinship to hostile work environment claims than to charges of a single episode of discrimination. Ledbetter's claim, resembling Morgan's, rested not on one particular paycheck, but on "the cumulative effect of individual acts." She charged insidious discrimination building up slowly but steadily. Initially in line with the salaries of men performing substantially the same work, Ledbetter's salary fell 15 to 40 percent behind her male counterparts only after successive evaluations and percentage-based pay adjustments. Over time, she alleged and proved, the repetition of pay decisions undervaluing her work gave rise to the current discrimination of which she complained. Though component acts fell outside the charge-filing period, with each new paycheck, Goodyear contributed incrementally to the accumulating harm.

The realities of the workplace reveal why the discrimination with respect to compensation that Ledbetter suffered does not fit within the category of singular discrete acts "easy to identify." A worker knows immediately if she is denied a promotion or transfer, if she is fired or refused employment. And promotions, transfers, hirings, and firings are generally public events, known to co-workers. When an employer makes a decision of such open and definitive character, an employee can immediately seek out an explanation and evaluate it for pretext. Compensation disparities, in contrast, are often hidden from sight. It is not unusual, decisions in point illustrate, for management to decline to publish employee pay levels, or for employees to keep private their own salaries. Tellingly, as the record in this case bears out, Goodyear kept salaries confidential; employees had only limited access to information regarding their colleagues' earnings.

The problem of concealed pay discrimination is particularly acute where the disparity arises not because the female employee is flatly denied a raise but because male counterparts are given larger raises. Having received a pay increase, the female employee is unlikely to discern at once that she has experienced an adverse employment decision. She may have little reason even to suspect discrimination until a pattern develops incrementally and she ultimately becomes aware of the disparity. Even if an employee suspects that the reason for a comparatively low raise is not performance but sex (or another protected ground), the amount involved may seem too small, or the employer's intent too ambiguous, to make the issue immediately actionable -- or winnable. [citations and footnote omitted]

In addition, the Journal editorial asserted that Ledbetter had waited until after "she took her pension" to sue for discrimination. This assertion ignores the finding by the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit -- which ruled against Ledbetter -- that she filed her formal charge of pay discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in July 1998. This was before Goodyear, as the court noted, made the plant where she worked eligible for the company's early retirement plan in August 1998, and before her retirement became effective on November 1, 1998.

The editorial also described Ledbetter's contention that each paycheck constituted a discriminatory act as a "creative theory," suggesting that this was a novel way of evading the statute's generally accepted limitations. But as the Supreme Court's majority opinion noted, the court took the case "[i]n light of disagreement among the Courts of Appeals as to the proper application of the limitations period" and compared the 11th Circuit's decision that they were reviewing to 2005 cases from the D.C. Circuit and the 2nd Circuit. Ginsburg elaborated on this point in her dissent:

On questions of time under Title VII, we have identified as the critical inquiries: "What constitutes an 'unlawful employment practice' and when has that practice 'occurred'?" Id., at 110. Our precedent suggests, and lower courts have overwhelmingly held, that the unlawful practice is the current payment of salaries infected by gender-based (or race-based) discrimination -- a practice that occurs whenever a paycheck delivers less to a woman than to a similarly situated man. See Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U. S. 385, 395 (1986) (Brennan, J., joined by all other Members of the Court, concurring in part) [emphasis added].

Ginsburg also noted that the EEOC agreed with what The Wall Street Journal referred to as the "creative theory":

Similarly in line with the real-world characteristics of pay discrimination, the EEOC -- the federal agency responsible for enforcing Title VII, see, e.g., 42 U. S. C. §§2000e--5(f), 2000e--12(a) -- has interpreted the Act to permit employees to challenge disparate pay each time it is received. The EEOC's Compliance Manual provides that "repeated occurrences of the same discriminatory employment action, such as discriminatory paychecks, can be challenged as long as one discriminatory act occurred within the charge filing period." 2 EEOC Compliance Manual §2--IV--C(1)(a), p. 605:0024, and n. 183 (2006); cf. id., §10--III, p. 633:0002 (Title VII requires an employer to eliminate pay disparities attributable to a discriminatory system, even if that system has been discontinued).

From the Journal editorial, headlined: "Trial Lawyer Bonanza":

Well, that didn't take long. Democrats are planning to kick off the legislative portion of the 111th Congress as early as today with two big donations to one of their most loyal retainers: the plaintiffs bar. Higher labor costs will result from a pair of bills designed to create new lawsuit possibilities in cases of alleged wage discrimination.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is an effort to overturn a 2007 Supreme Court decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber. Lilly Ledbetter had worked for Goodyear for almost 20 years before retiring. Only in 1998, after she took her pension, did she sue and allege wage discrimination stretching back to the early 1980s. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against her, noting the statute clearly said claims must be filed within 180 days, or sometimes 300 days, of the discrimination.

That ruling put to rest Ms. Ledbetter's creative theory that decisions made decades ago by a former boss affected her pay all the way to retirement, so that each paycheck was a new discriminatory act and thus fell within the statute of limitations. Yet that is exactly the theory Congress would now revive with the Ledbetter bill. There would no longer be time limits on such discrimination claims. They could be brought long after evidence had disappeared or witnesses had died -- as was the case with Ms. Ledbetter's former boss.

For the tort bar, this is pure gold. It would create a new legal business in digging up ancient workplace grievances. This would also be made easier by the bill's new definition of discrimination. Companies could be sued not merely for outright discrimination but for unintentional acts that result in pay disparities.

Since these supposed wrongs could be compounded over decades, the potential awards would be huge. Most companies would feel compelled to settle such claims rather than endure the expense and difficulty of defending allegations about long-ago behavior. The recipe here is file a suit, get a payday. And the losers would be current and future employees, whose raises would be smaller as companies allocate more earnings to settle claims that might pop up years after litigating employees had departed.

Tonight’s Crunchies award ceremony in San Francisco is now totally sold out. We’re sorry if you didn’t get a chance to grab a ticket, but you’ll still be able to watch the show streamed live via Ustream (click here to start watching once the show begins at 7:30).

The awards show, which is co-hosted by GigaOm, VentureBeat, Silicon Alley Insider, and TechCrunch, highlights some of Silicon Valley’s best startups, technological innovations, and breakthrough leaders of 2008. The nomination process saw nearly 170,000 total votes to pick out the finalists in each category, and then another 350,000 to pick the final winners.

We’ve got some big surprises for the show, and the afterparty in SF City Hall is also shaping up to be a blast. We’ll see you there!

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.