Chanel, Revlon and Johnson & Johnson: The big-name beauty brands among those ditching cruelty-free animal testing policies to sell their products to China

• By law, all human cosmetics sold in China must first be tested on animals
• Lucrative Chinese beauty sales rose by 18 per cent to £10bn last year
• Cruelty Free International chief executive 'disappointed' to see brands 'letting animals pay the price' for their profit-chasing

Daily Mail, by Suzannah Hills, 31 July 2012

 

Several big name beauty companies have been forced to remove a logo that declares them free of animal cruelty after they decided to sell their products in China.

Christian Dior, Yves Saint Laurent, Chanel and L'Oreal are among the high end brands that can no longer use the internationally-recognised official Leaping Bunny logo to show their cosmetics are free from animal testing.

It comes after the firms decided to start selling to China where animal testing on beauty products for human use is still required by law.

Going global: Big-name beauty brands have changed their animal
 testing policies so they can start selling their products in China (posed
by model)

Yves Saint Laurent's Touche Eclat concealor sells one tube
 every ten seconds around the world, but the company has
 decided to sell to the lucrative Chinese market, meaning it
cannot call itself cruelty-free any more

Huge cosmetic names Avon, Estee Lauder and Revlon, along side the likes of Yardley and Johnson & Johnson have also recently changed their animal testing policies to enter the ever enlarging Chinese market. 

Cosmetic sales in China increased by 18 per cent to £10billion last year - making it an attractive financial prospect.

But many companies selling their products in the country have been asked to fund animal testing of their products in Chinese laboratories in order for them to be sold to the public.

More...

• The 'sun screen' cosmetics swindle: How make-up products that claim to protect againstsun damage can leave you dangerously exposed
• Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more. Frankly they're evil
• Secrets ofan Olympic body: The workout regimen of Jessica Ennis

Cruelty Free International chief executive Michelle Thew said: 'The Humane Standards, symbolised by the Leaping Bunny logo, is the most rigorous international cruelty-free certification in the world.

'Each company is regularly audited to ensure that no animal testing takes place throughout each company’s entire supply chain.

'Where companies no longer comply with the Humane Standards, the right to use the Leaping Bunny logo is retracted.

'Following discussion with L’Occitane, its certification was retracted in mid-December.

'Some companies wish to bring ethical beauty to China, however this is not currently possible until China changes its current policy which requires animal testing.

'I am disappointed that certain companies have fallen prey to the lure of the Chinese market and are letting animals pay the price. Consumer pressure can make a difference.

The Leaping Bunny logo is used by brands that don't test
on animals, useful for ethically-conscious beauty fans

Emerging market: China requires that all cosmetics for human
 use are first tested on animals (pictured above is a make-up artist
at work in Shanghai)

'We certify over 400 companies around the world that refuse to allow animal testing into their products, so there is plenty of choice for everyone who wishes to eliminate this cruel, unnecessary and outdated practice.

'The only way that you can avoid animal testing in your toiletries and beauty products is by looking for the Leaping Bunny logo, or checking www.GoCrueltyFree.org.'

Britain banned animal testing in 1998 and several large cosmetics companies including Paul Mitchell, Sainbury's, The Co-operative, Superdrug, Marks & Spencer all have Leaping Bunny certification meaning they are cruelty-free.

Hair-care giant John Paul Mitchell Systems pulled out of China after being informed that the company would have to pay for animal tests in order to continue selling its products there.

Paul Mitchell CEO and co-founder John Paul DeJoria put sales in China on hold last year and confirmed they will not sell products in that country in order to remain committed to the company's cruelty-free policy.

Mr DeJoria said: 'Since Paul Mitchell was founded in 1980, we have been cruelty-free.

'We do not conduct or condone animal testing on our products, and we will not attempt to market our products in China until alternatives to animal testing methods have been accepted by the government.

'Paul Mitchell always has been and always will be cruelty-free.'

Leading the way: Marks & Spencer is one of several big UK firms
that has cruelty-free Leaping Bunny approval for its own products

Dr Dan Lyons, Campaigns Director of internal animal protection organisation Uncaged, said it is down to individual companies to make a stand.

He continued: 'It's a fundamental decision companies need to make.

'It's much better if they stick to their principles and avoid China, which will put pressure on the government to change their own policies.

'It's unnecessary for China to require repeat and totally unnecessary testing on these products.'

Urban Decay has also recently decided to cancel its plans to enter the Chinese market after being informed of the animal testing requirements.

Spokesman for the charity People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Foundation, Alistair Currie, said: 'We are seeing welcome signs of progress in China but their current animal testing requirements are a major factor pushing up cosmetics tests on animals globally.

'Companies who have turned their backs on their non-animal testing policies because of the lure of China have regressed a generation: their products are once again being dripped into rabbits' eyes and smeared onto animals' abraded skin.

'While many progressive and principled companies are sticking to their non-animal testing policies, others need more motivation.'

But the revelation that some large name brands are giving up their cruelty-free status to sell to China will come as a surprise to many shoppers.

And while an EU-wide ban on the marketing of animal-tested cosmetics is due to come into force next year, campaigners warn that the European Commission is now contemplating compromises or even delays to the legislation.

Mr Currie continued: 'It's vital that the EU protect its own ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics due in 2013.

'We've led the world on this issue – we mustn't take any steps backward right here in our own back yard.'

A spokesman for L'Occitane said: 'L'Occitane does not and never has tested its products on animals.

'Similarly, we insist that our suppliers certify that none of the ingredients we use are tested on animals.

'We do sell our products in China however and the Chinese government reserves the right to conduct tests, but we are hopeful that this situation will change soon.

'We are actively working with the BUAV, with whom we have a long term and constructive relationship, to influence the Chinese authorities to allow the alternative tests that apply elsewhere in the world.'

Jean-Christophe Samyn, Director of Caudalie UK, said: 'We are against animal testing. We do not test our ingredients and formulas on animals and never will.'

Related Articles:

What is Formaldehyde at 200 Times OSHA Safe Exposure Limit? Poison AND JNJ Baby Shampoo.

J&J starts removing toxins from baby products

J&J starts removing toxins
from baby products

Libor scandal: Deutsche Bank admits some staff involved

BBC News, 31 July 2012

Libor scandal 

• Barclays scandal: Key players
• Timeline: Libor-fixing scandal
• Did anyone lose out?
• How big could the scandal get?

Deutsche is to shed 1,900 staff and
review staff pay after reporting a 63%
fall in second quarter profit

Deutsche Bank has confirmed that a "limited number" of staff were involved in the Libor rate-rigging scandal.

However, it said an internal inquiry had cleared senior management of taking part in attempts to manipulate the rate at which banks lend to each other.

Deutsche Bank also announced it is to shed 1,900 staff, mostly outside Germany, due to the European economic downturn.

Most of the posts - 1,500 - will go from Deutsche's investment bank.

Libor scandal

Authorities in Europe, Japan and the United States are investigating more than a dozen banks about suspected attempts to manipulate the London interbank offered rate (Libor) and its equivalents such as Euribor.

The key lending rate is used to price trillions of dollars worth of financial assets.

Earlier this month, Barclays chairman and chief executive both resigned after the bank was found guilty of trying to rig the Libor rate by UK's Financial Services Authority.

In a letter to staff, Deutsche Bank's chairman of directors Paul Achleitner said: "A limited number of employees, acting on their own initiative, engaged in conduct that falls short of the Bank's standards, and action has been taken accordingly."

Job cuts

The job cuts announced by Deutsche Bank are part of restructuring plans aimed at saving 3bn euros ($3.7bn; £2.4bn).

The bank also said it was reviewing its pay and compensation deals for staff.

Deutsche also reported a 63% fall in second quarter earnings to 375m euros, from 969m euros last year.

In a joint statement, Deutsche's co-chairmen Jürgen Fitschen and Anshu Jain said: "The European sovereign debt crisis continues to weigh on investor confidence and client activity across the bank."

As late as April this year, Deutsche had insisted it would not need to make any job cuts.

Shares in Deutsche were up 2.3% to 25.42 euros in afternoon trade in Frankfurt.

Related Article:

Libor Fraud Was Happening In 1991, Trader Says, 17 Years Before Timothy Geithner Claims He Knew

Iran sentences 4 to death in $2.6B fraud case

Yahoo.com, by Nasser Karimi, Associated Press – Mon, Jul 30, 2012

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — An Iranian court has sentenced four people to death and given two more life sentences on charges linked to a $2.6 billion bank fraud described as the biggest financial scam in the country's history, an official said Monday.

The trial, which began in February, involved some of the country's largest financial institutions and raised uncomfortable questions about corruption at senior levels in Iran's tightly controlled economy.

But few specific details have been released, possibly to avoid exposing too much internal scandal while Iran's leaders seek to assure the country it can ride out tightening sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program.

Prosecutors have only referred to the linchpin defendant by a nickname and have provided just general information about his purported business empire. The main charges included using forged documents to get credit at one of Iran's top bank to purchase assets, including major state-owned companies.

The official IRNA news agency gave no names at all for most of the other defendants in the Revolutionary Court, which deals with cases involving security and organized crime. The report did not say when the verdicts were issued.

The report quoted state prosecutor Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehei as saying a total of 39 defendants received sentences, including four death sentences, two life terms and the rest of up to 25 years in prison. He said officials including deputy ministers in the government were among those sentenced, but did not identify any of them.

The main defendant, referred to by a nickname "Amir Mansour Aria," was among those charged with a potential capital offense. In February, state TV said he was accused of being "corrupt on earth," an Iranian legal term that means that the defendant is an enemy of God, and which in practice is a catch-all term for a variety of offenses. The charge carries the death penalty.

Aria pleaded not guilty, but acknowledged that he has violated some laws, the Iranian media said.

The indictment described Aria as head of the Aria Investment Development Co. It said the owners used "incorrect connections with executive and political elements" to accrue wealth.

"Dozens of instances of bribe payments to staff and managers of banks have taken place under various titles," it said.

Ejehei said the sentences are appealable. By law the convicted have 20 days to appeal.

Meanwhile, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his hardline rivals traded blows in their political power struggle. A court stripped one presidential ally of his job while officials in Ahmadinejad's government brought charges against the brother of one of his prominent critics, the speaker of parliament.

Ahmadinejad has faced more than a year of withering political attacks after challenging Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over the selection of the intelligence minister. Dozens of Ahmadinejad's allies have been arrested or driven from power by backers of Khamenei, and Ahmadinejad has been left severely weakened with less than a year left in his second and final term.

Ahmadinejad was once the favored son of Iran's theocracy, but his defiance of Khamenei was considered to be a rebellion against the supremacy of the clergy and the president's conservative allies turned on him. He still retains a following among Iran's working classes and rural poor who see the ruling clerics as aloof and out of touch.

In the latest twist, a court stripped one of Ahmadinejad's top appointees of his job after claims he was linked to the deaths of anti-government protesters, the IRNA news agency said.

The ruling against Saeed Mortazavi, head of Iran's social security organization, followed a suit filed by a group of anti-Ahmadinejad lawmakers.

In 2010, a parliamentary probe found Mortazavi — then chief Tehran prosecutor — responsible for the deaths by torture of at least three anti-government protesters who were in custody. Angry lawmakers in April threatened to impeach the country's labor minister, who appointed Mortazavi, over the case.

In a separate report, IRNA said Javad Larijani — the brother of both the country's parliament speaker and its powerful judiciary chief — came under investigation over allegations he illegally took control of protected land.

Tehran's chief prosecutor Alireza Avaei was quoted as saying that a court is studying the allegations. The claims were filed by the government agency in charge of natural resources.

The Larijani family are prominent critics of Ahmadinejad.

Larijani's brother Sadegh heads the judiciary and another brother, Ali, is parliament speaker. Javad leads the judiciary's human rights council. No date has been set for a hearing.

Libor Fraud Was Happening In 1991, Trader Says, 17 Years Before Timothy Geithner Claims He Knew

The Huffington Post, Mark Gongloff, Chief financial writer, Jul 27, 2012 

Tim Geithner claims he learned of Libor manipulation when the rest of us commoners did, in 2008. New evidence keeps coming out suggesting he should have known much, much earlier.

The latest example -- which puts the earliest time-stamp on Libor manipulation we've seen yet -- is a Financial Times op-ed by former Morgan Stanley trader Douglas Keenan. He claims that Libor, a key short-term bank lending rate that affects mortgages and other interest rates throughout the economy, was being jerked around for fun and profit as long ago as 1991.

Let that sink in for just a minute: Libor was being manipulated 17 years before the financial crisis and Geithner's babe-in-the-woods discovery of it, according to Keenan. Geithner wasn't in charge of the New York Fed at the time, but if this was widespread knowledge years before his arrival, it makes you wonder how he could not have heard about it for so long.

Now here's another Keenan allegation that will blow your mind. He notes that the guy running Morgan Stanley's rate-trading desk back then was none other than Bob Diamond. Yes, the same Bob Diamond that ended up becoming Barclays CEO, only to step down because his bank manipulated Libor like most people change socks.

Keenan doesn't say he has any evidence that Diamond was some sort of Libor-manipulatin' Ninja back in 1991. But Keenan does say that it was widespread knowledge even then that banks lied habitually about Libor.

He found this out when, in his early days on the trading desk, he noticed that Libor fixings -- set by a panel of banks, who declare, on a hilarious honor system, what their borrowing costs are -- were noticeably different from what financial markets predicted they should be:

Futures contracts on three-month Libor were -- and are -- traded on the London International Financial Futures Exchange (Liffe, now part of NYSE Euronext). There was a standard contract for the month of September. That contract had its rate settled on the third Wednesday of the month, at 11 o'clock.

In 1991, I had live trading screens that showed the Libor rates. In September of that year, on the third Wednesday, at 11 o'clock, I watched those screens to see where the futures contract should settle. Shortly afterwards, Liffe announced the contract settlement rate. Its rate was different from what had been shown on my screens, by a few hundredths of a per cent.

That few hundredths of a percentage point doesn't sound like a very big deal, but it adds up, day after day after day, on hundreds of trillions of dollars' worth of loans and derivatives contracts. Keenan says it was costing him money on his trades, and he complained to Liffe about it, getting nowhere.

Then he complained about it to his new buddies on the trading desk, who all laughed and laughed at him (emphasis mine):

I talked with some of my more experienced colleagues about this. They told me banks misreported the Libor rates in a way that would generally bring them profits. I had been unaware of that, as I was relatively new to financial trading. My naivety seemed to be humorous to my colleagues.

Imagine how hilarious Tim Geithner's naivete must seem to them! He had, after all, been in charge of the New York Federal Reserve since 2003. That organization runs point in the financial markets for the Fed and thus has intimate knowledge of and involvement in interest rates, including Libor. New York Fed officials talk all the time to people in the market. Somewhere along the way you might think they'd have heard about Libor manipulation.

In fact, they definitely heard about it at least once, in 1998, from Fed analyst Jeremy Berkowitz, who wrote a paper raising alarms about the accuracy of Libor and the ease with which it could be manipulated. Anecdotes in his paper dated back to 1996.

As Business Insider's Simone Foxman wrote, the report "suggests that the Fed was already ... concerned about the effects of inaccurate reporting by banks about their lending practices ten years before the financial crisis. Further, acknowledgments that a very small contingent of banks potentially could manipulate rates suggests that the Fed may very well have seen this coming."

And yet somehow Geithner only found out about Libor manipulation in 2008, a decade later.

This is an extraordinary missed opportunity, if it's true. Although it's hard to imagine what Geithner would have done about Libor manipulation had he learned earlier, considering his "actions" after his late discovery of it. He apparently didn't tell British regulators that the New York Fed had direct evidence that Barclays had admitted to not submitting an "honest" Libor. He didn't raise alarm bells in the market about the possibility that Libor was not accurate. He didn't tell U.S. banks to cool it with the Libor fraud.

What's more, he allowed Libor to be used in loans to banks under the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility and to American International Group, rubber-stamping Libor's legitimacy and potentially costing taxpayers millions, if not billions, of dollars.

Geithner's response raises questions about just how cozy he and other regulators have been with the banks they're supposed to be regulating -- and makes it even harder to believe his claim of utter cluelessness about Libor manipulation before 2008.

Related Articles:

Elizabeth Warren On Libor: 'Go Get 'Em' - New

Geithner on Libor: U.S. was first to raise red flags

CNN president resigns amid worst ratings in decades

RT.com, 27 July, 2012

Jim Walton, president of the CNN News Group of Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc. (Reuters/Fred Prouser)

CNN President Jim Walton revealed on Friday that he will leave the network after three decades effective the end of this year, an unexpected departure that follows an announcement that the station is seeing its worst ratings since the early 90s.

Walton will walk away from CNN after spending 30 years building the business up. He’s overseen their operations as president for the last decade, but announced in an email to his staff this week that both CNN and himself need to start working towards something new.

`I've been doing this job I'm in now for 10 years and I'm ready for a change,” Walton writes. “CNN needs new thinking. That starts with a new leader who brings a different perspective, different experiences and a new plan, one who will build on our great foundation and will commit to seeing it through. And I’m ready for a change. I have interests to explore and I want to give myself time to do it.”

Walton’s announcement made headlines immediately after he broke the news, but although his decision was unexpected, isn’t an unusual maneuver given the network’s waning ratings. CNN’s US channel experienced its worst ratings ever for a second quarter recently, with some of its shows seeing viewership drop by as much as 41 percent. The network was extensively revamped their shows during the last year, installing Piers Morgan as a prime-time host and shuffling two of its hallmark anchors, Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer, into new time slots and shows, and recruiting CNBC TV personality Erin Burnett after more than five years at one of CNN’s top competitors.

In a statement responding to the negative polling, CNN issued a press release last month saying, “As a news organization our ratings reflect the news environment much more so than the other networks. That said, we always want higher ratings but not at the expense of nonpartisan, quality journalism.”

On his decision to leave, Walton says that “There's always pressure” and acknowledges the network’s failures as of late.

"I've been doing this a long time and CNN has had its ups and downs, like all companies have had ups and downs. I feel really strongly about a number of parts of this company. We're having a really strong year internationally and in mobile. It's clear there's a lot of spotlight on CNN's U.S. performance and it's reasonable that there is that spotlight."

Related Articles:

Wait, Did CNN Just Lose HALF Of Its Viewers?

CNN, Thirty Years Later

"Recalibration of Free Choice"–  Mar 3, 2012 (Kryon Channelling by Lee Caroll) - (Subjects: (Old) Souls, Midpoint on 21-12-2012, Shift of Human Consciousness, Black & White vs. Color, 1 - Spirituality (Religions) shifting, Loose a Pope “soon”, 2 - Humans will change react to drama, 3 - Civilizations/Population on Earth,  4 - Alternate energy sources (Geothermal, Tidal (Paddle wheels), Wind), 5 – Financials Institutes/concepts will change (Integrity – Ethical) , 6 - News/Media/TV to change, 7 – Big Pharmaceutical company will collapse “soon”, (Keep people sick), (Integrity – Ethical)  8 – Wars will be over on Earth, Global Unity, … etc.)

"The Recalibration of Awareness – Apr 20/21, 2012 (Kryon channeled by Lee Carroll) (Subjects: Old Energy, Recalibration Lectures, God / Creator, Religions/Spiritual systems  (Catholic Church, Priests/Nun’s, Worship, John Paul Pope, Women in the Church otherwise church will go, Current Pope won’t do it),  Middle East, Jews, Governments will change (Internet, Media, Democracies, Dictators, North Korea, Nations voted at once), Integrity (Businesses, Tobacco Companies, Bankers/ Financial Institutes, Pharmaceutical company to collapse),  Illuminati (Started in Greece, with Shipping, Financial markets, Stock markets, Pharmaceutical money (fund to build Africa, to develop)), Shift of Human Consciousness, (Old) Souls, Women, Masters to/already come back, Global Unity.... etc.)

Barclays sorry for Libor scandal

BBC News, 27 July 2012

Libor scandal 

• Barclays scandal: Key players
• Timeline: Libor-fixing scandal
• Did anyone lose out?
• How big could the scandal get?

Barclays said it was determined
to regain people's confidence

Barclays has said it is "sorry for the issues that have emerged over recent weeks", when the bank has been caught up in a rate-fixing scandal.

Barclays was fined a record £290m by UK and US regulators for attempting to rig the Libor inter-bank lending rate.

The apology came as the bank's statutory pre-tax profit for the first six months of 2012 fell 71% to £759m after taking a large own credit charge.

But on an adjusted basis, profits were up 13% to £4.2bn, ahead of forecasts.

The bank made a further £300m provision for settling claims for mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI).

It also set aside £450m to cover potential costs of providing redress to small businesses sold inappropriate swaps.

"We are sorry... and recognise that we have disappointed our customers and shareholders," said chairman Marcus Agius.

"I speak for all of Barclays people when I say how determined we are to regain the full confidence of all our stakeholders; customers and clients, investors, regulators and staff alike."

The Libor scandal led to the resignation of chief executive Bob Diamond.

Related Articles:

Barclays in new FSA investigation

Barclays pay chair Alison Carnwath quits

David Cameron turns up the heat on Barclays: 'This must go right to the top'

Nomura chief resigns following insider-trading scandal

BBC News, 26 July 2012

Big Banking 

• Favourite turns down Barclays job
• Morgan Stanley's revenues tumble
• Capital One fined for mis-selling
• Cost cuts boost Bank of America

Mr Watanabe is leaving the bank
following the information leaks

The chief executive of Japan's Nomura Holdings has resigned following a damaging insider-trading scandal at the investment bank.

Kenichi Watanabe will step down on 31 July, and chief operating officer Takumi Shibata will also leave his post.

It is alleged that staff leaked information on share offerings to customers before it was made public.

Nomura shares rose more than 5% in Tokyo on the news.

The resignations came the same day as the bank posted a 89.4% drop in net profit in the fiscal first quarter to 1.89bn yen ($24.19m; £15.60m) from a year earlier. In Japan the fiscal year begins in April.

Revenue was up 12% year-on-year at 369.3bn yen.

'Bold choices'

Koji Nagai, president of Nomura Securities, the domestic brokerage, will replace Mr Watanabe as the new head of the group.

"We will make bold choices of what we will focus on," said Mr Nagai at a press conference, adding he would chart a "new global strategy".

"We will not simply stick to how we did things in the past," he said.

Japan's largest investment bank by revenues also appointed Atsushi Yoshikawa, head of US operations, as its new chief operating officer.

Last month, Nomura slashed the salaries of Mr Watanabe and Mr Shibata after an internal probe into the leaks.

Mr Watanabe was docked half of his six-month salary, while Mr Shibata was hit for half of his five-month salary.

The company has also admitted that some of its staff leaked sensitive information on planned share offerings by energy firm Inpex, Mizuho Financial Group and Tokyo Electric Power in 2010.

But on Thursday, Nomura said it was "highly possible" that there were more cases of insider trading than the three already identified and reported to the Financial Services Agency.

'Last straw'

"When you look at their history, the number of scandals, this was the last straw," said Jim Sinegal, an analyst with research firm Morningstar.

Mr Watanabe and Mr Shibata led Nomura's global push, taking over the non-US operations of Lehman Brothers in 2008, in what was described as a "once-in-a-generation opportunity."

However, the group has struggled since with a number of challenges, including cultural tensions over its business practices.

Earlier this year, Nomura ousted Jesse Bhattal, head of the global wholesale division, following disagreements over the direction of its overseas business.

Related Article:

AIJ president arrested in $1.4bn pension scandal

House passes Ron Paul's 'Audit the Fed’ bill

RT.com, 25 July, 2012

Ron Paul (T.J. Kirkpatrick / Getty Images / AFP)

A bill introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) to audit America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, passed the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly Wednesday afternoon by a 327-98 vote.

Paul’s ongoing efforts to call for increased transparency in the Federal Reserve have become a hallmark of his tenure in Congress and of his current campaign for the presidency.

Rep. Paul is still vying for the GOP nomination and intends to speak at the Republican National Convention in Florida next month. And although Paul has as recently as this week refused to endorse presumptive party nominee Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor has supported the congressman’s proposal to audit the Fed.

"Ron Paul's 'Audit The Fed' bill is a reminder of his tireless efforts to promote sound money and a more transparent Federal Reserve," Romney writes on his official Twitter page.

During the Wednesday afternoon vote in Washington, D.C., Paul received backing from all House Republicans but one, as well as support from 89 congressional Democrats.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), was among those on the opposing party of Paul’s that still saw reason to support the bill. "The Fed creates trillions of dollars out of nothing and gives it to banks,” Rep. Kucinich said before Wednesday’s vote. “Congress is in the dark. The Fed sets the stage for the subprime meltdown. Congress is in the dark. The Fed takes a dive on LIBOR. Congress is in the dark. The Fed doesn’t tell regulators what is going on. Congress is in the dark.”

"It is time for us to bring the Fed into the sunshine of accountability," the democratic congressman continued.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was one of those opposed to the bill, saying that passing it “increases the likelihood that the Fed will make decisions based on political rather than economic considerations, and that is not a recipe for sound monetary policy.”

Ben Bernanke, chairman of the US Federal Reserve has said that, although the Fed is “quite transparent and accountable on monetary policy,” there was room for improvement. Speaking to the House Financial Service Committee last week, Bernanke said the agency still “needs to be transparent and it needs to be accountable,” even though he believes that his quarterly projections and press conferences already allow the central bank to be relatively open with Americans.

Although Wednesday’s vote was a success for the congressman’s efforts to bring added transparency to the Fed, his fight for an audit doesn’t end here. Next the bill will be brought to the Senate for a vote, where it is not expected to pass. If it does clear both sides of Congress, however, it will then be sent to the desk of President Barack Obama to sign into law.

Related Article:

Ron Paul’s Federal Reserve audit approved by House committee

Bernanke to Hill: Flawed reporting on Fed loans

Fed secretly handed out $8 trillion

Barclays pay chair Alison Carnwath quits

Non-executive director who clashed with the chairman over Bob Diamond's bonus suddenly quits

guardian.co.uk, Jill Treanor, Wednesday 25 July 2012

Alison Carnwath, former pay chair at Barclays. Photograph: Micha
Theiner/City AM / Rex Feat

Barclays was thrown into fresh turmoil on Wednesday when one of the non-executive directors on the board of the scandal-hit bank suddenly quit.

Alison Carnwath, who also chairs the property company Land Securities, cited "personal reasons" for her immediate resignation from the board which has already suffered upheaval following the departure of chief executive Bob Diamond.

Even before the current Libor scandal there had been speculation about tension in the bank's boardroom.

She was said to have been in conflict with the bank's chairman Marcus Agius - who also quit in the wake of the Libor scandal - over a £2.7m bonus for Diamond that sparked a revolt over the bank's pay policies at the annual meeting in April.

Carnwath also endured a shareholder rebellion because of her status as chairman of the remuneration committee although some investors were later keen for her to stay following the reports that she had tried to stop the bonus. One investor said: "She seemed to have been the one board member asking the right questions."

However, others pointed out that she has seven other jobs or advisory roles in addition to Barclays. In terms of stock market listed companies, she chairs Land Securities and also sits on the board of the troubled hedge fund group Man Group, where she also endured a revolt about her continued membership of the board. Some 33% of investors failed to support her election to he board of Man, and some 22.5% failed to endorse her reinstatement on the board of Barclays, which are regarded as huge rebellions given that boardroom directors usually expect near-unanimous support.

She has not yet commented on the events.

But in a statement announcing her shock departure, Carnwath said: "With regret I have concluded that I am no longer able to devote sufficient time to my role as a director of Barclays given my other commitments. I would like to thank my colleagues on the board for their support and I wish Barclays continuing success in the future."

Agius, who will leave once his successor is found, said thanked her for her "contribution" since joining the board in August 2010.

But her departure comes at a difficult period for the bank which is due to publish first half profits of around £3.7bn on Friday and will spark fresh rumours of another rift in the boardroom.

When reports of a disagreement over the bonus emerged, the bank had insisted it was keen to foster debate in the boardroom.

The £290m fine for attempting to manipulate the Libor rate last month has left the bank seeking a new chairman and chief executive and handed a central role to former top accountant Sir Michael Rake who is now deputy chairman - although he has ruled himself out of the chairman's job despite expressing interest whem Agius first quit.

Related Articles:

Man shareholder anger focuses on Alison Carnwath

Xstrata and Man Group hit by investor protests against boardroom pay

David Cameron turns up the heat on Barclays: 'This must go right to the top'

US officers tell Congress that general blocked probe of hospital in Kabulaf

House hears of abuses that went uninvestigated because commanding officer allegedly feared 'bad news' getting out

guardian.co.uk, Karen McVeigh in New York, Tuesday 24 July 2012

One complainant said Lieutenant General William Caldwell had partisan
motives  in postponing any investigation until after the 2010 election.
Photograph: US navy/Reuters

The American general who led a Nato training mission in Afghanistan opposed an investigation into corruption and "Auschwitz-like" conditions at a US-funded hospital in Kabul for political reasons, US military officers told Congress on Tuesday.

One active-duty officer testified that the three-star general, Lieutenant General William Caldwell, who headed the training mission in Afghanistan, forced him to retract a request for an inspector general's investigation into the Dawood national military hospital.

Colonel Mark Fassl, said he was shocked when Caldwell brought up the 2010 congressional elections and said: "How could we do this or make this request with an election coming? He calls me Bill." Fassl, who was inspector general for the compound, said he believed it was a reference to President Barack Obama.

Two retired colonels who worked with training command also told the House oversight and government reform committee that Caldwell did not want an inspector general's report of the hospital. In testimony submitted ahead of the hearing, retired Colonel Gerald Carozza, who served as adviser to the US campaign in Afghanistan, said: "The evidence is clear to me that General Caldwell had the request for a probe [into the hospital] withdrawn and postponed until after the election and then, after the election, tried to intimidate his subordinates into a consensus that it need to move forward at all."

He went on: "The general did not want bad news to leave his command before the election or after the election."

At the hearing, officers described the extent of human suffering at the hospital, where the lack of care forced families of soldiers to empty "vats of blood draining from their wounds". When asked to describe the scene at the hospital, Fassl said it lacked basic facilities. Hygiene was poor and the hospital lacked soap, heat and the means to boil water, he said.

"There were open vats of blood draining out of soldiers' wounds, there was faeces on the floor. There were many family members taking care of their loved ones. The family members were emptying these vats of blood to help their patients out."

Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that Afghan soldiers often died from neglect or lack of food as some Afghan doctors and nurses demanded bribes for food. Fassl said he had expected Caldwell to insist on going to the hospital to find out what was going on.

Fassl said: "When I think about what we were trying to do in Afghanistan, which is build the army and police corps, how could we allow this type of suffering to go on when we should be showing the Afghan citizens that their soldiers matter?"

Caldwell is now head of the US army north command and senior commander of Fort Sam Houston in Texas. Colonel Wayne Shanks, spokeman for the command, said: "I am sure that Lieutenant General Caldwell would welcome the opportunity to respond to any inquiry, and I'm confident that once the facts are presented and examined, all allegations will be proven false."

'A dog and pony show'

At the hearing, the military officers spoke of the lack of discipline and rule of law that informed corruption in Afghanistan on a grand scale which prevented them from realising their mission. One committee member described as "the most honest and unvarnished assessment of Afghanistan that Congress has ever heard".

A memo written by another committee witness, retired air force colonel Schuyler Geller, a command surgeon attached to the training mission, confirmed poor treatment and corruption and that Caldwell did not want an inspector general's investigation.

Geller told the hearing that when military officials came to visit the hospital they got a "dog and pony show" that covered up the abuse.

Caldwell eventually agreed to request a limited investigation, but Carozza said it "would not mention the Auschwitz-like conditions at the national military hospital".

Committee officials said the inspector general has now opened two investigations in response to complaints over the response of Caldwell and a deputy, now Major General Gary Patton.

One concerns the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, which stops commanders from restricting subordinates' communication with the inspector general. The second involves allegations of reprisal from a complainant who alleged that Caldwell and Patton cited partisan reasons for requesting postponement of an investigation until after the 2010 elections.

Carozza said the committee should be considering a broader issue than conditions at the hospital. "What this hearing should about are attempts to over-control the message," he said in his testimony. "It is about some leadership that puts the best foot forward and relies on the hard built reputation earned by the military to soften any belief that there is a need to see the other foot."