Notorious MR who cheated Rupavahini Corp. in a sum of Rs. 160 million up to his tricks with courts too ! Asks time to attend

Two cases begin against Basil too : Rs. 3000 million Samurdhi funds misappropriation !

(Lanka-e-News - 16.March.2017, 11.45PM) The notorious defeated and people discarded ex president Mahinda Rajapakse who is by now a byword for corruption and perfidies , was summoned  before the  Presidential commission today (16) for questioning based on charges of cheating the State Rupavahini Corporation in a sum of Rs. 160 million over his non payment of fees in respect of his advertisements via the TV channel  during the last presidential elections . The well noted Machiavellian mendacious Mahinda Rajapakse in keeping with his overriding trait of doing everything unlawful and  avoiding everything that  is lawful kept avoided  courts today . He asked for another date – 24 th from court via a letter which was produced in court by his  lawyer Ganesh Dharmawardena .

The pathetic state of this country ‘s political landscape can be gauged in this backdrop in which   individuals  who are  flagrantly  cheating even  the State Institutions are shamelessly contesting   presidential candidates . Is it any wonder if people get cheated after such scoundrels become president of the country?

Meanwhile the Colombo High Court yesterday served indictment charges on Basil Rajapakse ,  own brother of this same ex president Mahinda Rajapakse the infamous  ‘cheatah’, over a fraud involving a whopping sum of Rs.29.4 million ! This sum was spent by Basil out of the public funds of Samurdhi alias Divi Neguma illegally to print  5 million calendars with the photograph of Mahinda Raajapakse during the run up to the last presidential elections.

The second accused in this case was served with the indictment sheet earlier on. The judge who postponed the case until the 24 th of May granted cash bail of Rs. 500,000.00 plus two  personal bails  in sums of  Rs. 500,000.00 each. 

Basil for whom a  revolving door should be  installed in the prison  because he goes in and comes out so frequently , the case against him in which he spent over Rs.2990 million of Divi Neguma public funds illegally  on roofing metal sheets which were distributed as bribes during the last presidential elections, was transferred to the chief high court ,Colombo. The reason for this was : Basil’s   lawyer objecting to high court judge Gihan Kulatunge  hearing  the case . The other accused in this case are : Dr. Nihal Jayatileke ex secretary of Basil’s ministry , Bandula Thilaksiri and Kithsiri Ranawake. 

---------------------------
by     (2017-03-17 00:43:12)

Basil even tried to hit Karu over RTI 

Mar 16, 2017

The parliamentary passage of the right to information act is historic, and is a democratic victory of all Sri Lankan citizens. That victory was backed by the unwavering determination of Karu Jayasuriya. This is also a big achievement for the present speaker in his political career.

When the RTI was first tabled in the House during the former Rajapaksa regime, all and sundry in that corrupt administration did their utmost to prevent its progress. For that corrupt regime, RTI was poison. When a parliamentary committee that met to discuss the proposal, economic development minister at the time Basil Rajapaksa even got up from his seat and tried to hit Jayasuriya, then an opposition MP. “What is this for? Why these acts? As long as we are there, this will not be allowed to be passed,” he exploded.

Also known as ‘Mr. ten per cent’, Basil was the father of corruption in the Rajapaksa administration. Immediately after that regime collapsed, he fled the country as he well knew his own conduct, and that he was the most corrupt in the Rajapaksa family. He was so angry over Karu because had the RTI been passed, all his corrupt politics would have been exposed. When he got up to hit Karu, who was over 15 years older to him, another corrupt minister came to his support. Now, he is a top figure in the ‘Yahapaalana’ regime too.

When Karu was asked by a group of journalists about the history of the RTI, Basil’s attempt to hit him and the other corrupt minister who came to his aid, he just gave them an indifferent smile.

Palestine activists shouldn’t dismiss sports boycott

Fans hold up Palestine flags during Glasgow Celtic’s match against an Israeli football team on 17 August 2016.Russell CheyneReuters

Eoin Wilson-16 March 2017

On an August evening in Glasgow last year, supporters of Celtic Football Club waved dozens of Palestinian flags during a Champions League playoff match against Israeli team Hapoel Be’er Sheva, garnering global attention.

European soccer’s governing body, UEFA, responded by fining Celtic for violating the sacrosanct – and many argue highly selective – prohibition against mixing soccer (“football” to the world outside the US) and politics.

But the penalty only presented members of the Green Brigade, Celtic’s famously fanatical left-wing supporters, or “ultras,” with an opportunity to further voice their opposition to the Israeli occupation while also providing practical solidarity to projects in Palestine.

They launched a “Match the Fine for Palestine” online fundraising campaign that ultimately saw Celtic supporters raise and donate more than $210,000 divided between the Lajee cultural center in the Aida refugee camp in Bethlehem and the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians.

BDS potential

The example of Celtic is instructive of the “hugely significant” potential of soccer – the world’s most popular sport – in the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

Aubrey Bloomfield, a researcher and writer in New York specializing in sport and politics, told The Electronic Intifada that utilizing sport in the BDS movement could have “significant” impact.

“I think Celtic fans have certainly been the most high-profile recent example, in part because of their explicit defiance of UEFA … and have also been the most explicit in terms of situating their actions as supportive of the BDS movement,” he said.

A successful campaign of boycott against Israeli soccer, Bloomfield added, “would have a significant psychological and reputational impact.”

Geoffrey Lee, a coordinator with Red Card Israeli Racism, a UK-based campaign group, said that soccer is “one of the most perfect normalization activities” for Israel.

Within BDS, sport falls under the cultural segment, which is led by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, PACBI.

PACBI spokesperson Mariam Ibrahim called the Celtic fans’ example a “model” of how soccer can play a central role in not only forcing the expulsion of Israel from international soccer, but in raising awareness more generally about Palestine.

“The use of football to whitewash Israeli policies can be also an opportunity to open a debate to a much broader global football audience and mobilize millions to support Palestinian rights and the global BDS movement,” Ibrahim said.

Much current soccer BDS activism is focused on the six Israeli settlement teams in the occupied West Bank that play in the Israel Football Association leagues.

Activists are calling for FIFA, UEFA’s international counterpart, to either force Israel to exclude the settlement teams, or to exclude Israel from international soccer if the Israel Football Association refuses. FIFA’s own regulations, specifically statute 72.2, state that clubs from one national association cannot operate in the territory of another national association without its consent.

“The statute means that the [Israeli] clubs on Palestinian territory cannot play in Israeli leagues,” Lee explained.

Possible precedents

One course of action for FIFA and UEFA could lie in applying the solution they settled on in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

The “Crimean solution,” instigated by UEFA, set a precedent by enforcing the principle that teams based in occupied land (Crimea) cannot play in the leagues of the occupier (Russia). But in the case of Israel, FIFA seems to be “frozen into inaction,” Lee said.

“The Russian situation was tackled immediately,” he noted, so the lack of action against Israel cannot be explained by an absence of precedent.

Instead, Lee suggested, “there is a natural conservatism among the game’s authorities, and they don’t want disruption, especially when it comes to politics.”

Bloomfield argued that it is FIFA itself that is continuing to mix politics and soccer by allowing settlement clubs to play under its authority, “in violation of both FIFA rules and international law.”

FIFA has previously responded to calls for boycott. In 1964, it suspended South Africa from international soccer, and then expelled the country completely in 1976. It was not until 1992, and after the end of the apartheid regime, that the country had its FIFA membership restored.

“FIFA’s exclusion of South Africa … is today seen as a moment of pride for football’s governing body. It contributed to the international isolation of apartheid and the strengthening of international solidarity with Black South Africans resisting oppression,” Ibrahim said.

Indeed, a sporting boycott is the reason Israeli soccer is now played in a European framework. With most of its members refusing to play Israel, the Asian Football Confederation decided to expel the country in 1974. After a period in soccer limbo, Israel joined UEFA as a full member in 1994.

The Asian Football Confederation continues to push for sanctions against Israel. In February, the confederation’s executive committee agreed to call on FIFA to seek an “urgent resolution to the ongoing Palestine issues with Israel” and help Palestinian teams to play unhindered.

BDS soccer strategy

In 2015 the Palestinian Football Association, led by Jibril Rajoub, a former West Bank security chief and someone seen as close to Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, threatened to call for a vote by FIFA members on Israel’s membership. Ultimately, the Palestinian Football Association backed down, apparently due to a lack of support for the motion among FIFA members.

Bloomfield, however, speculated that perhaps the moves to call a vote were only ever “empty threats,” intended to make Rajoub “sound tough and seem like he was standing up to Israel.”

“One important challenge is the tension between BDS and the Palestinian establishment, which includes the PFA [Palestinian Football Association]. The Palestinian establishment does not explicitly support BDS, but at times tries to strategically co-opt the movement and its political capital, something that has drawn criticism from BDS supporters,” Bloomfield said.

Ibrahim from PACBI was also scathing in her assessment of any Palestinian Football Association role in BDS.

“The space for effective BDS action on Israel inside FIFA remains limited because the Palestinian Football Association, which exercises a tight control over the sports community in Palestine, has acted against Palestinian interests and rights and betrayed its duty to defend Palestinian football,” she told The Electronic Intifada.

The actions of soccer supporters, such as Celtic fans, have also provoked discussion on whether the BDS movement should limit itself to the issue of settlement clubs.

“[BDS] should be targeting the Israeli occupation as whole, just as the sporting aspect of the anti-apartheid movement was focused on the whole of the apartheid system, not just racial discrimination in South African sport,” Bloomfield said.

Ibrahim agreed that “football has not been exactly prominent in the BDS movement,” but added that ”momentum is now growing for the FIFA campaign.”

For Lee, part of the reason soccer has not played a major role in BDS so far is because of Israel’s “low profile” in international soccer.

“More’s the pity,” he argued, “as in Israel football is of prime importance within domestic politics in order to normalize Israel” as a state with so-called “European values.”

Bloomfield envisions “key BDS groups developing a strategy, coordinating with supportive fans and activists, and explicitly articulating what a sporting boycott and sporting sanctions would and should look like.”

Independent, creative actions by fans such as Celtic’s are “part of why BDS has been so successful and grown so much,” he suggested, and should be complemented by a clearer, more comprehensive strategy to harness soccer’s potential.

Vulnerable sponsors, reluctant footballers

Another option for expanding the sporting boycott, PACBI’s Ibrahim suggested, is to target the economic side of Israeli soccer, pressuring companies that sponsor clubs while drawing attention to FIFA’s own professed commitment to ethical business practices. Article 3 of FIFA’s statutes, for example, states that “FIFA is committed to respecting all internationally recognized human rights and shall strive to promote the protection of these rights.”

PACBI’s Ibrahim suggested that fans should also educate their clubs and footballers about BDS and Palestine, and for retired athletes, “who are more free to speak out,” to take a public stand.

So far individual soccer players have been slow to step forward. In other areas of the cultural boycott, prominent figures have emerged as vocal supporters, former Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters being one example.

“The emergence of a Waters-type figure in sport would be a sign that the profile of the sporting aspect of BDS had already grown significantly,” Bloomfield said.

Increasing the prominence of soccer within BDS has great potential to complement the actions of supporters on the terraces and in the streets.

The case of Celtic serves as an example of the way sporting spaces generally, and soccer in particular, can be fertile ground for mobilizing international support for justice in Palestine.

Neither FIFA nor UEFA responded to requests for comment.

Eoin Wilson is a freelance journalist focusing on Palestine, international solidarity, protest and social movements. Twitter: @eoin_wilson

Letter bomb that exploded at Paris IMF office was sent from Greece

Officials believe letter may have been sent by group that claimed responsibility for parcel bomb sent to German finance minister

 IMF letter bomb was homemade, says Paris police chief

Helena Smith in Athens and agencies-Thursday 16 March 2017

A letter bomb that was dispatched to the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Paris and blew up on Thursday, injuring the employee who opened it, was sent from Greece, the Greek public order minister has said.

Greek intelligence officials are working on the assumption that the blast in the French capital may have been orchestrated by an urban guerrilla group that claimed responsibility for a parcel bomb sent to the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, on Wednesday.

That suspicion was bolstered on Thursday when Nikos Toskas said he had been told the IMF letter bomb had been contained in an envelope with a Greek return address. “French authorities just informed us that it was mailed from Greece,” Toskas told Ant1 Television.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the Paris letter bomb, which was reported to have burned the IMF staff-member on her face and arms as she opened it.

The explosion was caused by a “fairly homemade” device, the French capital’s police chief, Michel Cadot, told reporters.

He said there had been recent telephone threats, but it was not clear whether these were linked to the incident at the IMF’s offices.

Greek anarchist groups have recently ratcheted up criticism of the demands made on Greece by the IMF as discussions continue between Athens and its international creditors on the disbursement of new loans under a bailout programme.

On Wednesday, a group, Conspiracy of Fire Cells, said it had sent a letter bomb to Schäuble’s office, declaring online: “We still have the rage ... Nothing is over, everything continues.” The suspicious parcel was intercepted by German authorities before it reached its intended recipient.

France, which is in the middle of a presidential election campaign, is still in a state of emergency with army units on patrol in Paris.

The president, François Hollande, said French authorities would do all they could to find those responsible for the letter bomb.

The IMF managing director, Christine Lagarde, condemned the explosion as “a cowardly act of violence”. 

She said: “I reaffirm the IMF’s resolve to continue our work in line with our mandate. We are working closely with the French authorities to investigate this incident and ensure the safety of our staff.”

Author: France is turning blind eye to Saudi's dangerous power games

Author Pierre Conesa explains how ignoring the kingdom's split personality in terms of diplomacy could pose problems for France

French president François Hollande presents the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Nayef, with the Order of the Legion of Honour on a visit to Paris, 4 March 2016 (AFP)

Hassina Mechaï-Thursday 16 March 2017

Pierre Conesa's new book on Saudi's soft power projection opens with a quote from Richard Holbrooke, former US ambassador to the UN, that sets the tone for what follows: “The Saudis exported their problems by funding the schools, the madrassas, all over the Islamic world.”

Author France is turning blind eye to Saudi's dangerous power games.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Republicans Join Democrats in Defending NATO

House lawmakers challenge Trump’s criticisms of the military alliance in a resolution obtained by FP.

BY JOHN HUDSON-MARCH 16, 2017

A bipartisan group of 18 U.S. lawmakers are leaping to the defense of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, countering President Donald Trump’s attacks that the six-decade-old military alliance is obsolete.

The lawmakers introduced a resolution Thursday that takes aim at the president’s most frequent criticisms of the organization, such as his view that it isn’t oriented toward fighting terrorism. The resolution does not explicitly mention the president by name.

“Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has evolved to take on new dangers including terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and cyber attacks,” the resolution states.

Despite concerns that the resolution could be viewed as a swipe against the president, nine Republicans signed on as cosponsors to the legislation, including Reps. Mike Coffman (Co.), Ann Wagner (Mo.), Tom Cole (Ok.), Vicky Hartzler (Mo.), Ted Yoho (Fla.), Doug LaMalfa (Cal.) Leonard Lance (N.J.), John Moolenaar (Mich.), and Andy Harris (Md.).

In describing her support for the resolution, Wagner cited her role as a former United States ambassador to Luxembourg and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “It is incumbent on the United States and our European allies to reinvigorate our global commitment to international order,” she told FP.
The resolution also takes aim at Russia, a country whose president Trump has praised repeatedly and with which he has expressed a desire to have closer bonds.

“Russia has continued to threaten the sovereignty of countries in Europe and exhibit threatening behavior toward our own military assets,” the resolution states. “NATO sends a clear collective message that the Alliance will not tolerate Russia’s provocation.”

During the presidential campaign, Trump warned that that the United States might not come to the defense of NATO allies if they don’t shoulder a greater burden for their own security. His criticisms reflected longstanding concerns by military leaders that the vast majority of NATO countries do not meet NATO’s target of spending two percent of GDP on defense. But his threat to abandon freeloading NATO members in the time of crisis rattled NATO members.

More recently, Trump has softened his criticism of NATO and even claimed that members were beginning to make progress on paying their fair share.

“Our partners must meet their financial obligations. And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that,” Trump said earlier this month during his first joint address to Congress. “In fact, I can tell you the money is pouring in. Very nice.”

In fact, there hasn’t been any new money from NATO allies as a result of Trump’s criticisms, and there haven’t been any new commitments since Defense Secretary James Mattis made his case for increased military spending to allies in February.

Democratic Rep. John Delaney (Md.) said the resolution has bipartisan support in part because new language was included in the resolution urging NATO allies to increase defense spending. “That is a change from the last resolution,” he said. “My Republican colleagues have been strong and forceful on that point.”

“I think Gen. Mattis would read this resolution and he’d agree with it,” he added.

Trump federal budget 2018: Massive cuts to the arts, science and the poor

President Trump just released his budget plan for the next fiscal year, which proposes some big changes in government spending. Here's a look at what agencies are helped and hurt by the proposal. (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

By Damian Paletta and Steven Mufson March 16 at 12:01 AM

President Trump on Thursday will unveil a budget plan that calls for a sharp increase in military spending and stark cuts across much of the rest of the government including the elimination of dozens of long-standing federal programs that assist the poor, fund scientific research and aid America’s allies abroad.

Trump’s first budget proposal, which he named “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again,” would increase defense spending by $54 billion and then offset that by stripping money from more than 18 other agencies. Some would be hit particularly hard, with reductions of more than 20 percent at the Agriculture, Labor and State departments and of more than 30 percent at the Environmental Protection Agency.

It would also propose eliminating future federal support for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Within EPA alone, 50 programs and 3,200 positions would be eliminated.

The cuts could represent the widest swath of reductions in federal programs since the drawdown after World War II, probably leading to a sizable cutback in the federal non-military workforce, something White House officials said was one of their goals.

“You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it,” White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters.



What's getting cut in Trump's budget VIEW GRAPHIC

Many of Trump’s budget proposals are likely to run into stiff resistance from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, even from Republicans, whose support is crucial because they must vote to authorize government appropriations. Republicans have objected, for example, to the large cuts in foreign aid and diplomacy that Trump has foreshadowed, and his budget whacks foreign aid programs run by the Education, State and Treasury departments, among others.

“The administration’s budget isn’t going to be the budget,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). “We do the budget here. The administration makes recommendations, but Congress does budgets.”

Trump’s budget would not take effect until the new fiscal year on Oct. 1, but the president must still reach a separate agreement with Congress by the end of April, when a temporary funding bill expires. If they can’t reach an agreement, and if Trump’s new budget plan widens fault lines, then the chances would increase for a partial government shutdown starting on April 29.

The president and Congress must also raise the debt ceiling, which has become a politically fraught ritual. Although the ceiling was extended until March 15, budget experts say the government should be able to continue borrowing money by suspending or stretching out payments through August or September.

White House budget proposals are often changed by lawmakers, but they serve as a marker for how the president plans to govern and as an opening bid on budget talks. Mulvaney said the White House was open to negotiation, but he was unapologetic about the size and scope of the reductions.

“This budget represents a president who is beholden to nobody but the voters,” Mulvaney said. “He is following through on his promises. We did not consult with special interests on how to write this budget. We did not consult with lobbyists on how to write this budget. The president’s team wrote this budget and that’s what you’ll see in the numbers.”

The 53-page budget plan offers the clearest snapshot yet of Trump’s priorities. Yet it is also far shorter and vaguer than White House budget plans normally are. One of the missing details is precisely where and how many jobs would be eliminated across the federal government.

[Read President Trump’s first budget proposal]

Parts of the budget proposal also appear to contradict Trump’s agenda. Trump has said he wants to eliminate all disease, but the budget chops funding for the National Institutes of Health by $5.8 billion, or close to 20 percent. He has said he wants to create a $1 trillion infrastructure program, but the proposal would eliminate a Transportation Department program that funds nearly $500 million in road projects. It does not include new funding amounts or a tax mechanism for Trump’s infrastructure program, postponing those decisions.

And the Trump administration proposed to eliminate a number of other programs, particularly those that serve low-income Americans and minorities, because it questioned their effectiveness. This included the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which disburses more than $3 billion annually to help heat homes in the winter. It also proposed abolishing the Community Development Block Grant program, which provides roughly $3 billion for targeted projects related to affordable housing, community development and homelessness programs, among other things.

The budget was stuffed with other cuts and reductions. It calls for privatizing the Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic control function, cutting all funding for long-distance Amtrak train services and eliminating EPA funding for the restoration of Chesapeake Bay. Job training programs would also be cut, pushing more responsibility for this onto the states and employers.

Many Republicans have criticized these programs in the past as wasteful and ineffective, but supporters have said the programs are vital for communities in need.

The proposed budget extensively targets Obama programs and investments focused on climate change, seeking to eliminate payments to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund — one key component of the U.S. commitment to the Paris climate agreement — and to slash research funding for climate, ocean and earth science programs at agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. At the same time, clean-energy research, heavily privileged by the Obama administration, would suffer greatly under the budget with the elimination of the ­ARPA-E program (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy) at the Energy Department and an unspecified cut to the agency’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

“I think one of the reasons they’re proposing them [big spending cuts] is that they know they won’t ever get through Congress,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). “They know they’d be a disaster for their own party if they did. It makes for a great talking point. It actually fits on a tweet.”

There were several areas in which Trump proposed increasing spending. He proposed, for example, $168 million for charter school programs and $250 million for a new private-school choice program, which would probably provide tuition assistance for families who opt to send their children to private schools.
The biggest increase in spending would be directed at the Pentagon, but the budget plan does not make clear where the new $54 billion would go. The budget plan would boost funding for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. It would, among other things, acquire new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and rebuild what it says are depleted munitions inventories. But it stops short of saying how these new funds would support new tactics to combat the Islamic State.

The bump in defense spending was a marked contrast to the cuts Trump proposed in diplomatic and international programs. He proposed cutting combined spending for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development by $10.1 billion, or nearly 29 percent. It would cut an unspecified amount of funding from U.N. peacekeeping efforts. It would also cut spending for Treasury International Programs, foreign assistance programs that have been supported by Republican and Democratic administrations, by $803 million, or 35 percent.

Trump directed funding to meet several of his campaign pledges as well.

He proposed new money to hire border security agents and immigration judges.

And he requested $1.7 billion in new funding this year and an additional $2.6 billion in new funding in 2018 to begin construction of a wall along the border with Mexico. Trump proposed creating this wall during his campaign and had said Mexico would pay for it. A number of congressional Republicans appear to be cooling on the idea.

The federal government is expected to spend more than $4 trillion in the fiscal year that begins in October, and Trump’s budget proposal would deal with slightly more than 25 percent of this funding. The government is expected to spend $487 billion more than it brings in through revenue during the next fiscal year, and to avoid widening the deficit, Trump proposed steep cuts across the budget to compensate for the new defense spending.

Trump will propose a more comprehensive budget plan in May, which could include changes to programs such as Medicaid and also offer economic forecasts. But that proposal will come after the deadline for reaching an agreement to avoid a partial shutdown. So Thursday’s budget proposal from Trump will factor squarely into those negotiations.

 Tory election expenses defence doesn’t stand up

By PATRICK WORRALL-16 MAR 2017

The Conservatives are under fire after the Electoral Commission fined them a record £70,000 for a string of breaches of election rules.

The Tories failed to report expenses properly for the 2015 General Election and three by-elections the year before.

The watchdog issued its report after a long-running Channel 4 News investigation into Conservative election spending, including the question of whether the party incorrectly recorded money spent on its “battle bus” tour.

Party activists were bussed to key marginal seats, and some money that should have been declared as spending on campaigns in individual constituencies was wrongly declared as national spending.

The Electoral Commission said that meant there was “a realistic prospect that this enabled its candidates to gain a financial advantage over opponents”.

It also said party workers sent to South Thanet to try to hold a Tory seat under attack from Ukip promoted and supported the local candidate, but their work was not declared as local spending.

Today, senior Tories attempted to play down the scandal – but they made a series of questionable claims in the process.

“We have complied fully with the Electoral Commission throughout their investigation.” – Theresa May

This is directly contradicted by the Electoral Commission’s version of events. The watchdog said in its report:

Specifically, the commission said the Conservatives failed to hand over material when requested, and only did so fully after the watchdog lodged an application with the High Court for a disclosure order.

Refusing to hand over documents, then only agreeing to do so under the threat of being dragged to the High Court, isn’t “complying fully”.

In fact, “lack of co-operation by the Party during the investigation” was one of the reasons the Commission imposed such a large fine.

We’re talking about something like half a percent of the total spending of the national party. – Sir Oliver Letwin

Former Conservative cabinet minister Sir Oliver Letwin defended the Conservatives in a BBC Radio 4 Today programme interview this morning.

It’s not absolutely clear what calculation he’s making here. If we only counted the £104,765 which the Tories missed off their return, that would indeed by just over 0.5 per cent of the £15.5m they spent on the 2015 General Election.

We could quibble with this, and ask why Sir Oliver doesn’t the include the £118,124 which was either not reported or incorrectly reported.

This would come to around 1.5 per cent of the party’s 2015 spending.

But more importantly,  this is arguably not a useful way of putting the spending breaches in context.

While the spending limits for a party’s national campaign are relatively large, the maximum an individual candidate can spend on his or her local campaign is much smaller.

In South Thanet – the key seat investigated by the Electoral Commission – Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay was only allowed to spend £15,016.

With such tight limits imposed on candidates, a relative small amount of extra money or resources spent locally could give one party a considerable advantage over another.

“My suspicion here is that actually, there isn’t any guilty party or somebody who was trying to do something wrong… I think what we’ve seen is people making a whole series of human errors.” – Sir Oliver Letwin

Sir Oliver’s repeatedly suggested that the breaches can all be explained by mistakes rather than criminal conduct – but this is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide.

The Electoral Commission has referred Simon Day, the Conservative Treasurer at the time (and a former Chief Executive) to the police “for consideration as to whether to investigate him for a potential offence” under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.

It is now a matter for Scotland Yard to decide how to proceed. The watchdog said an offence would be committed if a treasurer “knowingly or recklessly made a false declaration”.

The phrase “human error”, which Sir Oliver used in the interview, was specifically rejected as a defence by the commission, who said it “did not constitute a reasonable excuse”.

Separate to that police matter, 12 forces have sent files to the Crown Prosecution Service as part of a parallel investigation into returns submitted by individual candidates.

It will be for CPS lawyers to decide whether to pursue prosecutions.

Dutch PM cheers EU leaders by seeing off far-right's Wilders

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the VVD Liberal party appears before his supporters in The Hague, Netherlands, March 15, 2017. REUTERS/Yves Herman--Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the VVD liberal party arrives at parliament in The Hague, Netherlands, March 15, 2017. REUTERS/Dylan Martinez

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte (R) of the VVD Liberal party talks with Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders of the PVV Party during a meeting at the House of Representatives at the Dutch Parliament after the general election in The Hague, Netherlands, March 16, 2017. REUTERS/Yves Herman--Dutch parties leaders take part in a meeting at the Dutch Parliament after the general election in The Hague, Netherlands, March 16, 2017. REUTERS/Yves Herman

By Anthony Deutsch and Toby Sterling | AMSTERDAM- Fri Mar 17, 2017

EU leaders lined up on Thursday to congratulate Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte on beating far-rightist Geert Wilders in the first of a series of European elections this year in which populist insurgent parties are hoping to rock the establishment.

The center-right prime minister had trailed in opinion polls for much of the campaign but emerged the clear victor of Wednesday's election, albeit with fewer seats than before.

Wilders, who campaigned on an anti-immigration platform and wanted to shut mosques and ban the Koran, won a third more seats than at the last election but was thwarted in his bid to become the biggest party.

Rutte, whose win helped boost the euro EUR= and European shares, called it an "evening in which the Netherlands, after Brexit, after the American elections, said 'stop' to the wrong kind of populism."

A win for Wilders would have been seen as a boost for French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, running second in opinion polls before a presidential election in April and May, and for populist parties elsewhere that want to curb immigration and weaken or break up the European Union.

The sense of relief among European leaders was palpable.

"The Netherlands are our partners, friends, neighbors. Therefore I was very happy that a high turnout led to a very pro-European result, a clear signal," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who will run for re-election in September.

French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron, expected to face Le Pen in a two-way run-off on May 7, said: "The Netherlands is showing us that a breakthrough for the extreme right is not a foregone conclusion and that progressives are gaining momentum."

The risk premium demanded by investors to hold French government bonds rather than safe-haven German bunds sank in early trade to its lowest level in two weeks, although it later widened again as France released new supply into the market via a debt auction.

GIFT FROM TURKEY

With 99 percent of votes counted, Rutte's VVD Party had won 33 of parliament's 150 seats, down from 41 at the last vote in 2012. Wilders was second with 20, and the CDA and centrist Democrats 66 tied for third with 19 each, data provided by the ANP news agency showed.

Rutte is now virtually guaranteed a third term, leading a government that can be expected to continue tightening immigration policy in the Netherlands, already among the strictest in the EU.

A number of parties including the VVD and the third-placed Christian Democrats (CDA), have already adopted most of Wilders' anti-immigration platform, if not his fiery anti-Islam rhetoric.

With his strong second-place finish, Wilders warned Rutte that he had not seen the last of his Party for Freedom. He added that he wanted to participate in coalition talks, even though mainstream parties have ruled out working with him.

"We were the 3rd largest party of the Netherlands.

Now we are the 2nd largest party. Next time we will be number 1," Wilders said.

Rutte got a last-minute boost from a diplomatic row with Turkey, which allowed him to take a tough line on a majority Muslim country during an election campaign in which immigration and integration have been key issues.

"Rutte profited from moving to the right, but also from Wilders having radicalized a lot over the last years and being invisible in the campaign," said Cas Muddle, associate professor at the University of Georgia, referring to Wilders' decision to forego election debates until the final week.

"On top of that, Turkish President (Tayyip) Erdogan gave (Rutte) a beautiful gift."

Turkey has been locked in a deepening row with the Netherlands after the Dutch barred Turkish ministers from speaking to rallies of overseas Turks.

Turkey's foreign minister said the views of Wilders - who wants to close all mosques and ban the Koran - were shared by rival parties and were pushing Europe towards "wars of religion".

Erdogan on Thursday said that while Rutte may have won the election, he had lost his country's friendship.

FOCUS NEXT ON LE PEN

With 13 parties set to enter a fragmented parliament under the proportional Dutch voting system, it will likely take months for Rutte to negotiate a ruling coalition. He will need at least three other parties to reach a majority.

At 80 percent, turnout was the highest in a decade in an election that was a test of whether the Dutch wanted to end decades of liberalism and choose a nationalist, anti-immigrant path by voting for Wilders and his promise to "de-Islamicise" the Netherlands and quit the EU.

Outgoing French President Francois Hollande called the result a "clear victory against extremism", and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker called it "an inspiration for many".

France's Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault tweeted: "Congratulations to the Dutch for stemming the rise of the far-right."

But Mabel Berezin, professor of sociology at Cornell University in the United States, said defeat for Wilders should not be considered a sign that European populism is waning.

"The real bellwether election will be Marine Le Pen's quest for the French presidency, starting April 23 – that is where the populist action is and that is what we should be focusing upon," she said.

While Rutte overtook Wilders in the closing stages of the campaign, years of austerity pushed down his share of the vote. His junior partner in the outgoing coalition, Labour, suffered its worst ever result, winning just nine seats, down from 38 last time.

Wilders' tally of 20 seats is five more than before, but still well below a 2010 high of 24 seats. Support for the two most pro-EU parties, the progressive D66 and GreenLeft, was way up.

Denk, a party supported by Dutch Turks, looked set to win three seats and become the first ever ethnic minority party in parliament.

(Additional reporting by Stephanie van den Berg, Phil Blenkinsop, Thomas Escritt, Brian Love, Alastair Macdonald, Abhinav Ramnarayan and Madeline Chambers; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

Afraid of Duterte’s drug dragnet, Filipinos no longer reporting crimes – VP

(File) Philippines vice president Leni Robredo. Source: Reuters/Ezra Acayan

 16th March 2017

FEARING arbitrary arrests and possible violence at the hands of the Philippines’ often overzealous men in blue, many from impoverished communities in the Southeast Asian country have stopped going to the police to report crimes, according to Vice-President Leni Robredo.

In a video addressed to the United Nations, Robredo described this as one of many disheartening consequences of President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs, apart from the thousands already killed.

Criticising the brutal methods used in Duterte’s drug purge, she described a situation where police are entering homes in low-income communities without warrants, rounding up large groups of people in public spaces like basketball courts, and incriminating people based on the arbitrary fact of whether they have tattoos.

“Some of those have told us normally when there is crime, they go to police. Now they don’t know where to turn to,” she said.

Robredo also described a “change heads” scheme where the wife, husband or relatives of a drug suspect will be arrested by police if the alleged criminal is not present.

“Our people feel both hopeless and helpless.”

SEE ALSO: Philippines’ dark history with the death penalty

Citing more than 7,000 people have been killed in summary executions as part of the president’s crackdown on drug dealers since last July, Robredo said “we agree our people deserve nothing less than a safe environment.”

Duterte previously stated millions of Filipinos were “slaves” to drugs and that he would be happy to “slaughter” three million drug addicts like Hitler killed Jews.

Some 2,500 people have been killed in operations during which policemen claim they fired in self-defence.

Robredo continued the issue of drugs was bound up with poverty and social inequality, meaning “one that cannot be solved with bullets alone.”

“It must be regarded as it truly is – a complex public health issue,” she said.

She said her office supports rehabilitation and education of drug-dependent Filipinos to reintegrate them as productive members of society. Given some people claim to have been beaten by police when asking for search warrants, she said “we must all demand greater transparency on the war on drugs.”

Duterte removed Robredo from Cabinet last December after she began criticising the drug war. She said in the video “democracy demands dissent.”

Senator Leila de Lima, another outspoken critic of Duterte’s bloody methods, was arrested on drug charges earlier this month.

Eleven other Philippine legislators who voted against a Bill to re-introduce capital punishment lost key posts in the country’s Congress on Wednesday.

Duterte apologised several days ago to Robredo for ignoring “this beautiful lady” during a speech at the Philippine Military Academy and has previously commented on the length of her skirt.

SEE ALSO: Hit US TV show angers Filipinos with portrayal of sexist ‘president’

“To know the international community’s eyes are on us and to feel human rights advocates are watching over our country give us comfort, courage, and hope,” Robredo said.

The video will be shown today at the annual meeting of the UN Commission on Drugs in Geneva.