br / bAuteur:/b a href='http://www.cinezik.org/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofileu=1047'air-man77/abr /br / bPosté le:/b Jeu Déc 04, 2008 11:49 pmbr /br / br /br / Je Rajoute aussi:br / HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN - A Window To The Past (magnifique morceau) (favorite track)

BRUXELLES L'objectif du concepteur de www.prisoners.be est la réintégration des prisonniers dans la société. Ce nouveau site va leurs permettre de communiquer avec le monde extérieur. Si une surfeuse est ...

San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer has spoken out on his role in the passage of Proposition 8 in the aftermath of the ensuing protests, asking, "What is the way forward for all of us together? Even though we supporters of Proposition 8 did not intend to hurt or offend our opponents, still many of them, especially in the gay community, feel hurt and offended. What is to be done?"

Niederauer, who is credited with bringing in the Mormon church and the massive finances of its donors, urged people to tone down the rhetoric: "Tolerance, respect, and trust are always two-way streets, and tolerance respect and trust often do not include agreement, or even approval. We need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. We need to stop talking as if we are experts on the real motives of people with whom we have never even spoken. We need to stop hurling names like 'bigot' and 'pervert' at each other. And we need to stop it now."

The SF Chronicle reports:

"During the campaign, Niederauer issued statements, sent flyers and gave a videotaped interview posted at www.marriagematterstokids.org. But Niederauer's most prominent action was drawing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members responded with intensive grassroots organizing and an estimated $20 million in campaign contributions from individuals that accounted for half of the Yes on 8 campaign's total. Niederauer noted that many other Christian denominations supported Prop. 8, including evangelical Protestant, Orthodox and historically African American churches. The Mormon church has said Niederauer, previously the bishop of Salt Lake City for 11 years, played a pivotal role in its joining the cause. 'We were invited to join the coalition,' Michael Otterson, managing director of public affairs for the church, told The Chronicle in an interview shortly after the election. 'We didn't unilaterally go into the battle.' Otterson said Niederauer's letter persuaded the Mormon church that they wouldn't be fighting this battle alone, a status that would have made them vulnerable."

Niederauer wants everyone to accept the procreation argument for the family and the "marriage" label, and wants gays to accept "a contract for the benefit of a relationship between adults" but not call it marriage.

He forgives "single parents, grandparents, foster parents and others" who "fail to realize" the ideal procreative one man-one woman model but doesn't deny them his permission to marry, because they are heterosexual.

Basically, Niederauer wants gays and lesbians (many of whom do procreate through surrogates, etc, I might add) to accept our status as second-class citizens and move on.

Read his full message, entitled "Moving Forward Together," AFTER THE JUMP...

S.F. archbishop defends role in Prop. 8 passage [sf chronicle]

***

SAN FRANCISCO CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP NIEDERAUER - "MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER"

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” In the weeks since the adoption of this amendment the media have carried many speculations about the role of the Catholic bishops in California, and about my role in particular, in the passage of this proposition. It is my wish to clarify here what was done and why it was done, and offer some thoughts about the way forward amid so many misunderstandings and hard feelings.

Five years before my appointment as Archbishop of San Francisco, in the year 2000, Proposition 22 was placed on the California ballot. This statute, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, passed with 61% of the vote. On May 15th of this year, the California State Supreme Court declared that statute unconstitutional and legalized same-sex marriage in California. Around the same time, Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment qualified for the ballot.

The Catholic bishops of California, organized as the California Catholic Conference, and speaking through their office of public policy in Sacramento, endorsed Proposition 8 and urged Catholics, and organizations of lay Catholics, to work for its passage, by means of grass roots activity and contributions from their resources. We bishops also endorsed Proposition 4, regarding parental notification of a minor child’s intended abortion (defeated at the polls) and we opposed Proposition 6, a “tough on crime” initiative inconsistent with the principles of restorative justice (defeated).

The Archdiocese of San Francisco did not donate or transfer any Archdiocesan funds to the campaign in favor of Proposition 8. As far as I know, that is also true of other Catholic dioceses in California. The Archdiocese did pay, and appropriately disclose, printing and distribution of flyers to parishes.

Last May the staff of the Conference office informed me that leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) had given their support to the campaign for Proposition 22 in the year 2000, and were already considering an involvement in connection with Proposition 8. Accordingly, I was asked to contact leaders of the LDS Church whom I had come to know during my eleven years as Bishop of Salt Lake City, to ask them to cooperate again, in this election cycle. I did write to them and they urged the members of their Church, especially those in California, to become involved.

It is important to point out here that a wide range of churches became active in favor of Proposition 8: in addition to Catholics and LDS members, evangelical Protestant churches and churches with many African-American members joined the effort, and, among the Orthodox churches, the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of San Francisco and three other Orthodox bishops signed and published a joint statement in favor of Proposition 8.

That is what was done. Why was it done? Some voices in the wider community declare that there could be only one motive: hatred, prejudice and bigotry against gays, along with a determination to discriminate against them and deny them their civil rights. That is not so. The churches that worked in favor of Proposition 8 did so because of their belief that the traditional understanding and definition of marriage is in need of defense and support, and not in need of being re-designed or re-configured.

Some of our opponents respond with this question: Even if these churches saw the California State Supreme Court decision in May as damaging to the institution of marriage as they understood and valued it, shouldn’t they have kept quiet and stayed on the sidelines? Some would say that, in light of the separation of church and state, churches should remain silent about any political matter. However, religious leaders in America have the constitutional right to speak out on issues of public policy. Catholic bishops, specifically, also have a responsibility to teach the faith, and our beliefs about marriage and family are part of this faith.

Indeed, to insist that citizens be silent about their religious beliefs when they are participating in the public square is to go against the constant American political tradition. Such a gag order would have silenced many abolitionists in the nineteenth century and many civil rights advocates in the twentieth. Quite a number of important political issues regularly touch upon the ethical, moral, and religious convictions of citizens: immigration policy, the death penalty, torture of prisoners, abortion, euthanasia, and the right to health care are some such issues.

Members of churches who supported Proposition 8 sincerely believe that defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is one such issue. They see marriage and the family as the basic building blocks of human society, existing before government and not created by it. Marriage is for us the ideal relationship between a man and woman, in which, through their unique sexual complementarity, the spouses offer themselves to God as co-creators of new human persons, a father and mother giving them life and enabling them to thrive in the family setting.

Are there many instances in which this ideal fails to be realized? Of course there are. Single parents, grandparents, foster parents and others deserve praise and support for their courage, sacrifice and devotion in raising the children for whom they are responsible. Still, the proponents of Proposition 8 subscribe to a definition of marriage that recognizes and protects its potential to create and nurture new human life, not merely a contract for the benefit of a relationship between adults.

Whatever others may say, the proponents of Proposition 8 supported it as a defense of the traditional understanding and definition of marriage, not as an attack on any group, or as an attempt to deprive others of their civil rights. The fact remains that, under California law, after the passage of Proposition 8, same sex couples who register as domestic partners will continue to have “the same rights, protections and benefits” as married couples. Proposition 8 simply recognizes that there is a difference between traditional marriage and a same sex partnership.

What is the way forward for all of us together? Even though we supporters of Proposition 8 did not intend to hurt or offend our opponents, still many of them, especially in the gay community, feel hurt and offended. What is to be done?

Tolerance, respect, and trust are always two-way streets, and tolerance respect and trust often do not include agreement, or even approval. We need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. We need to stop talking as if we are experts on the real motives of people with whom we have never even spoken. We need to stop hurling names like “bigot” and “pervert” at each other. And we need to stop it now.

For our part, we churchgoers need to speak and act out of the truth that all people are God’s children and are unconditionally loved by God. While we argue among ourselves, the people who need our help with hunger, unemployment, homelessness and other problems wait for us to turn together toward them. More particularly, we Catholics in the Archdiocese of San Francisco need to minister to the needs of all Catholics in this local Church. Whoever they are, and whatever their circumstances, their spiritual and pastoral rights should be respected, together with their membership in the Church. In that spirit, with God’s grace and much prayer, perhaps we can all move forward together.

***END OF STATEMENT***

divimg alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.15.1/40836?ns=guardianpageName=World+news%3A+A+toxic+legacych=World+newsc3=The+Guardianc4=Guantanamo+Bay+%28News%29%2CObama+White+House+%28News%29%2CBarack+Obama+%28News%29%2CUS+foreign+policy%2CUS+news%2CHuman+rights+%28News%29%2CWorld+newsc5=Not+commercially+useful%2CUS+Electionsc6=Julian+Borgerc7=2008_12_04c8=1128354c9=articlec10=GUc11=World+newsc12=Guant%C3%A1namo+Bayc13=c14=h2=GU%2FWorld+news%2FGuant%C3%A1namo+Bay" width="1" height="1" //divpEver since January 11 2002, when the first 20 prisoners were flown in from Afghanistan in orange jumpsuits and shackles, the Guantaacute;namo Bay detention camp has been a hefty burden around the Bush administration's neck. /ppThe defence secretary at the time, Donald Rumsfeld, picked the Cuban enclave as the "least worst place" to hold captives accused of terrorism. But the effort to run a camp outside the reach of US or international law, so that "enemy combatants" could be held indefinitely without charge, steadily corroded America's standing in the world. The images of the inmates languishing in small metal cages in Camp X-Ray, the rudimentary first phase of the complex, and the steady stream of reports of human rights abuses, have taken a daily toll. The camp's existence has angered and embarrassed Washington's closest allies, and become a recruitment tool for its enemies. /ppNearly six years on, there is no debate over whether "Gitmo" should be closed - only how. As it approaches the end of its term, the Bush administration is anxiously attempting to dispose of its own toxic legacy. John Bellinger, the state department's top lawyer, has been trying to persuade other governments to accept detainees cleared for release. More than 500 have already been sent back to their homelands or to third countries, but there are still 250 prisoners left who cannot go home for fear of persecution and who no one else will accept. They are now Barack Obama's problem./ppThe president-elect has frequently stated his intention to close Guantaacute;namo. In an interview since the election, he repeated that pledge, saying it was "part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world". But the question of what to do with the remaining inmates still divides his ideologically diverse national security and justice teams./ppObama's inaugural speech on January 20 will be closely scrutinised around the world for signs of how bold or cautious he decides to be. His policy on Guantaacute;namo will be widely seen as a benchmark for his intentions as president. /ppA report by a non-partisan panel of US security and human rights experts, entitled Closing Guantaacute;namo: From Bumper Sticker to Blueprint, estimates that the camp could be emptied within a year if the Obama administration decided on a clean break from Bush policies and devoted enough resources to the job. The report advocates the establishment of an independent commission to review the cases of all the detainees, to assess the evidence against them and order the immediate release of the innocent./ppThe first task will be to complete the Bush administration's effort to find homes for the 150-200 prisoners who, according to lawyers familiar with their stories, have no case to answer but who cannot be sent back to their native countries for fear they would be victimised, tortured or killed. /ppThe clearest example of inmates stuck in this limbo are the 17 Uighurs, separatists from a Muslim minority in China who were seized in Pakistan during the Afghan war. They have all been cleared for release by the US authorities, most as long ago as 2003, but have so far not been accepted by any third countries. Albania agreed to take in five other Uighur detainees in 2006, but has refused to take any more. /ppBellinger's efforts to find any other government to receive the Uighurs have been undermined by the adamant refusal of the US authorities to allow them to live in America because of the presumed threat they pose to the US, in part because of presumed animosity caused by six years of detention without charge. Obama's envoys may find they have better luck than Bellinger./pp"I don't think anyone is inclined to do this administration any favours, but Obama will find he has a lot of goodwill to draw on," a European diplomat says. But that goodwill will be greatly enhanced if the new administration stops fighting the resettlement of inmates in the US./ppA second category of prisoners will be referred for prosecution outside Guantaacute;namo, but that raises the question of whether that prosecution should be conducted by military courts martial in the US or the civilian legal system. That will be a decision that goes to the philosophical heart of the issue - should the US approach terrorism as a military threat or as a criminal enterprise, or some hybrid of the two? Obama has refrained from using the phrase "war on terror", but he is said to be under pressure from the more conservative national security experts on his team to leave his options open and not bind himself with the procedural constraints of the civilian judiciary./ppOn the other side of the debate is a "rule of law" camp within the embryonic administration which argues that anything short of a complete return to constitutional normality would rob Obama of the international goodwill he might otherwise gain by scrapping Guantaacute;namo./ppThat debate underlies the toughest dilemma the new administration is likely to face on closing the offshore camp: whether there should be a third category of prisoners, deemed too dangerous to release but too difficult to prosecute. The evidence against them may be in the form of intelligence material that cannot be disclosed in court, or that falls short of legal proof. Confessions would also be ineligible if they were obtained under torture, as in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks who was "waterboarded" (subjected to simulated drowning) by the CIA. And few if any of the inmates of Guantaacute;namo were reminded of their right not to incriminate themselves, which is standard police practice./ppThe Bush administration has been seeking international agreement for a new form of preventative detention that would allow inmates in this third category to be held in the US and abroad. "The problem is you've got 200-plus very dangerous people, and the question is what do you do with them. And these are people who say regularly: 'If I'm let out of here, I will go immediately and start killing Americans again,'" Condoleezza Rice, the outgoing secretary of state, said during a visit to London this week. She argued that "even though you know that this person is a future threat, we don't really have a legal framework for that, which is why it's been done within a war framework. But if you don't hold a person who you know is a future threat, then you risk the deaths of thousands of innocents. So I do think that this is something for the international community to take up."/ppThere is little sign, however, that the international community has any appetite for such a departure from established human rights law. The decision on preventative detention will be Obama's alone. Several of his advisers and allies, liberals included, think that terrorism is such a pernicious threat, and the security risks of releasing suspects are so great, that new legislation allowing for preventative detention is unavoidable. The political risk of a released inmate carrying out an attack are also enormous. Such an event could prove crippling to a new administration. /ppOn the other hand, any new system of preventative detention would be seen around the world as Guantaacute;namo redux, human rights lawyers say. It would be every bit as effective as an al-Qaida recruiting tool, and would perpetuate the extremists' self-image as warriors rather than mere criminals. Within the internal debate under way in the transition team, liberal activists want foreign governments to lobby Obama against creating a new legal limbo. /ppIt is one of the toughest decisions the new president has in his in-tray. What Obama decides will say a lot about his presidency. Sarah Mendelson, a senior fellow of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and author of the Closing Guantaacute;namo report, says it is uncertain which way Obama would lean. But she adds: "My sense is the president-elect has taught courses in the constitution in one of the most reputable law schools in country. He ran on opting back into the international system. The idea of going for a new legal regime that will result in more years in litigation is not going to appeal. It will not be the clean break he needs to make."/ph2A history of the prison camp/h2p· January 11 2002: First prisoners arrive/pp· February 27 2002: First hunger strike begins/pp· April 29 2002: The first prison, Camp X-Ray, closes, replaced by a more solid concrete construction, Camp Delta/pp· November 10 2003: US Supreme Court agrees to hear appeals from inmates that they are being held illegally/pp· February 13 2004: Bush administration agrees to establish review panels to establish whether inmates still pose a threat/pp· March 19 2004: Five British detainees freed/pp· February 16 2006: The UN calls for the closing of Camp Delta, arguing that the treatment of some inmates amounts to torture/pp· June 10 2006: Three inmates hang themselves/pp· June 21 2006: President Bush first expresses the wish to close the camp/pp· September 6 2006: Fourteen "high-value" detainees are transferred from secret CIA prisons around the world to Guantaacute;namo, including Khaled Sheikh Mohamed, Abu Zubaydah and Ramzi Binalshibh, three alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks/pp· June 12 2008: US Supreme Court rules that inmates have the right to challenge their incarceration in the US courts/pdiv style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"ullia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/guantanamo"Guantánamo Bay/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/obama-white-house"Obama White House/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/barackobama"Barack Obama/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usforeignpolicy"US foreign policy/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa"United States/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/humanrights"Human rights/a/li/ul/diva href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"guardian.co.uk/a copy; Guardian News Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"Terms Conditions/a | a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/webfeeds/1,,1309488,00.html"More Feeds/a pa href="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/DnF9th1tAua-YMzXf_qz88giof4/a"img src="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/DnF9th1tAua-YMzXf_qz88giof4/i" border="0" ismap="true"/img/a/p

Berkeley Art Museum br / Saturday January 31, 2009br / 7:00 p.m. br / br / Performance: Love Can Build a Bridgebr / Love Can Build a Bridge takes place in Marfa, Texas, as Donald Judd’s kin start arriving from far-flung places on the morning after his death. They descend on their old drinking spot, Roy’s Cotton Club, with its two windows overlooking Donald Judd’s art farm. They are a motley crew—Donald’s estranged wife Naomi Judd and their chubby daughter Wynonna; Ashley Judd, a bitter Hollywood action star battling her addiction to Morgan Freeman; Judd Nelson, Judd’s illegitimate son brought up by Native peoples and practicing secret Indian rainmaking ceremonial rituals; the artists Richard Serra and Ulay and Marina Abramovic, habitués—or prisoners?—of Judd’s legendary art colony; and Ben Gage, his big-city lawyer concealing a terrible secret. In one corner of the bar a mysterious stranger nurses a Roy-jito, Roy’s own twist on the Mojito that involves a twist of cotton floating above the rim of the glass. Who is this wandering stranger and why is she smiling and sobbing?img src="http://rhizome.org/syndicate/nothing.gif?f=announce" border="0"img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/rhizome-announce/~4/474161128" height="1" width="1"/

This first bit might be a bit off the cinematic path, but it's something strange enough to rival those stories of a frozen Walt Disney. You might have heard that David Tennant (our latest Doctor Who) is starring in a stage version of Hamlet over in the UK. Well, it seems that he wasn't using a fake skull -- in fact, it was the skull of a Shakespeare enthusiast, concert pianist and Holocaust survivor Andrew Tchaikowsky. Tennant leaked the information, and now the BBC reports that it will no longer be used so that the audience wouldn't be distracted. Bummer for Tchaikowsky's dying wish, but imagine the possibilities. Is bone donation the next wave in creative appreciation?

In other dark news, Variety reports that the classically creepy Michael Wincott (Top Dollar from The Crow) is teaming up with Swedish actor/director Rafael Edholm for an untitled Sweden-set drama. According to Wincott: "Three people meet, something may have happened in their teenage years, and this will now result ín one death. It is drama, thriller and dark comedy." Unfortunately, we won't learn what that all means for a while -- production isn't slated to start until February 2010.

Finally, we've got a scribe for the upcoming remake of Captain Blood. The Hollywood Reporter posts that John Brownlow, writer of 2003's Sylvia, has grabbed the gig. If you're not familiar with the Oscar-nominated original, Errol Flynn starred as a doctor convicted of treason who is sold into slavery only to escape and become a pirate. This whole thing makes me itch for Cary Elwes to return to his escaped prisoner-turned-pirate roots. Who's with me?

Filed under: Action, Drama, Independent, Thrillers, Casting, Deals, Scripts

Permalink | Email this | Comments

It has been awhile since I saw anything that really blew my mind, and this week we've already got three indie films making our front page. Check this one out for size. The film is called Bronson, which was directed by Nicolas Winding Refn. If you head over to BDTV you can chew on the official trailer, which looks insanely violent and incredibly bloody. The film is the evolutionary journey of Mickey Peterson into Britain's most notorious and dangerous living prisoner CHARLES BRONSON. Originally sentenced to 7 years in prison for burglary, Charles Bronson has been behind bars for 34 years, 30 of which have been spent in solitary confinement. Charlie has forged an outrageous reputation through violence, hostage taking and rooftop protests to become a notorious figure in the British public's consciousness.

divimg alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.15.1/26587?ns=guardianpageName=World+news%3A+Revealed%3A+Britain%27s+torture+of+Obama%27s+grandfatherch=World+newsc3=guardian.co.ukc4=Barack+Obama+%28News%29%2CUS+news%2CKenya+%28News%29%2CUS+elections+2008+%28News%29%2CMilitary+UKc5=Not+commercially+useful%2CUS+Electionsc6=Owen+Bowcottc7=2008_12_03c8=1127886c9=articlec10=GUc11=World+newsc12=blogc13=c14=Deadline+USA+blogh2=GU%2FWorld+news%2Fblog%2FDeadline+USA+blog" width="1" height="1" //divpThe past usually finds a way of catching up with us. Could Britain's colonial sins pose a risk to our relationship with the soon-to-be most powerful person on Earth?/ppAccording to the Times, Barack Obama's grandfather a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5276010.ece"was imprisoned and tortured by the British/a during Kenya's Mau Mau uprising./ppThe claim is spread across three pages of the newspaper and illustrated with black and white photographs of detention camps operated by British soldiers in the 1950s./ppHussein Onyango Obama, the president-elect's paternal grandfather, had served with the British army in Burma during the second world war and later found work back in Kenya as a military cook./ppLike many army veterans, he returned to Africa hoping to win greater freedoms. But his aspirations soon turned to resentment of the occupying British./ppHe became involved in the Mau Mau independence movement and was arrested as early as 1949, probably on charges of membership of a banned organisation./ppDuring two years' detention he was subjected to horrific violence, according to the story's authors, Ben Macintyre and Paul Orengoh. Tortures inflicted on Kenyan prisoners sometimes involved such barbaric implements as "castration pliers"./pp"The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed," Sarah Onyango, 87, tells the Times./ppThe behaviour of British soldiers is the subject of continuing a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/06/kenya.topstories3"legal action in the UK courts/a from victims seeking reparations for torture and mistreatment suffered more than 50 years ago. The Kenyan Human Rights Commission is still gathering evidence.br / br /The alleged torture of Onyango reportedly left him permanently scarred and bitterly anti-British. Barack Obama's memoirs, the paper observes, show that a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5276030.ece"he too is no admirer of British colonialism/a./ppObama's family connection to the Mau Mau was already known – some US commentators have even used the label to smear him as a a href="http://contrariancommentary.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/barack-obama-is-the-mau-mau-candidate-for-president/" "Mau Mau insurgent"/a. /ppObama, with more pressing contemporary problems on his plate, is unlikely to be fixated on extracting revenge from the UK. But he may draw the broader historical conclusion that the imposition of torture and repressive violence has a habit of undermining the political legitimacy of world-class powers./ppHe has already signalled his determination to a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obama-plans-guantanamo-cl_n_142593.html"close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre/a and speed up a href="http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/"withdrawal from Iraq/a. We will have to wait and see whether his grandfather's experience has a bearing on his policies on Afghanistan and international terrorism./pdiv style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"ullia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/barackobama"Barack Obama/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa"United States/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/kenya"Kenya/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/uselections2008"US elections 2008/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/military"Military/a/li/ul/diva href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"guardian.co.uk/a copy; Guardian News Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"Terms Conditions/a | a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/webfeeds/1,,1309488,00.html"More Feeds/a pa href="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/hHITcLO7t2uSBnfHORmkUEA0g0Q/a"img src="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/hHITcLO7t2uSBnfHORmkUEA0g0Q/i" border="0" ismap="true"/img/a/p