US religious right renews assault on abortion

Catholics and evangelicals join forces to put abortion at centre of Senate debate on healthcare reform
? Datablog: the US in abortion statistics

Catholic bishops and Protestant evangelists in the US have unleashed an intense lobbying campaign to force fresh limitations on access to abortion into healthcare legislation under debate in the Senate this week.

Pro-choice groups have described the religious ambush of health reform ? which this month pressured the House of Representatives to effectively block women from using medical insurance to pay for abortions ? as one of the most serious threats to abortion rights of recent years.

The campaign has thrust the divisive issue back to the forefront of US politics, pitting the White House and its allies against religious leaders who have accused the Obama administration of being part of a "culture of death".

Ten days ago more than 150 bishops and other religious leaders issued a declaration denouncing Barack Obama's position on abortion and threatening civil disobedience against new laws affecting that and other social issues, such as gay marriage.

Anti-abortion activists were reinvigorated ahead of the opening of the healthcare legislation debate in the Senate today by their success in garnering support in the House of Representatives over an issue that was widely regarded as having lost its political potency with the election of a pro-choice president. 

At the core of the strategy by the Catholic church and Christian evangelists is a campaign to rally churchgoing voters to pressure members of Congress to ensure that new healthcare laws bar government funds from paying for abortions.

The measure's supporters say it merely extends existing policy. But Naral Pro-Choice America, one of the country's largest abortion rights groups, says the effect of such legislation will be to prevent insurance companies that presently pay for abortions from covering terminations. This, they say, is because government funds will be used to run a new insurance exchange designed to make the market more competitive and to subsidise coverage for low-income families.

Naral's communications director, Ted Miller, called the inclusion of the amendment "a wake-up call for America's pro-choice majority".

"It's clear that the election of a pro-choice president and the perception of a pro-choice majority in Congress led many Americans to believe that they could be complacent about a woman's right to choose," he said.

"It goes far beyond the status quo. The amendment would make it nearly impossible for private insurance plans to cover abortion. The status quo is that about 85% of private insurance plans currently cover abortion services. It really prevents women from being able to use their own money to purchase an insurance plan that includes abortion coverage. That's far, far out of step with the current private insurance market."

Pro-choice advocates had thought the anti-abortion camp was in retreat after recent political gains, including Obama's election victory and seven failed attempts to curb abortion rights by public ballot in four states since 2005. Opinion polls showed younger voters were less passionate about the issue than their elders.

But there were flickerings of the old fire when abortion emerged as a central issue in a New York state congressional race last month. Sarah Palin joined other prominent rightwingers in rejecting the Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, because she was pro-choice and supported same-sex marriage. They threw their weight behind a hard right independent candidate who eventually lost to a Democrat after Scozzafava withdrew from the race.

On Friday more than 150 Christian leaders and activists, led by conservative evangelicals and Catholics, issued a long declaration denouncing abortion, along with gay marriage and liberal social policies, and threatening to break laws that compromised their beliefs.

The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience says that Obama's stated aim of reducing the need for abortion is a "commendable goal" but alleges that his policies will increase the number of terminations, while accusing the government of being part of "a culture of death".

"The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of foetal development and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense," the declaration reads. "Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views."

Among the signatories are 15 Catholic bishops and leading evangelical Christians such as James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family.

The declaration says supporters will be "united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the licence to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion". Measures will include defiance of the law if laws protecting individuals from having to act against their conscience are changed: for example, if religiously affiliated hospitals are obliged to assist in abortions or research involving the destruction of embryos.

"Through the centuries Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required," the declaration says.

"We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's.

But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

While a resurgent opposition to abortion has brought various religious interests together, they are otherwise sharply divided about the broader healthcare legislation. Catholic leaders strongly favour ensuring that undocumented immigrants are covered, and a recent opinion poll of Catholic voters showed 73% in

favour of a government-run health insurance plan. The evangelical right is passionately against both measures.

Abu Dhabi shares suffer record drop

? Top finance official warns of 'short-term' pain for investors
? Securities Exchange falls 8.31% while Dubai World loses 15%
? Moody's warns contagion from the debt crisis is 'unavoidable'
? Datablog: How much money do banks lend around the world?

The Dubai government said today that it will not guarantee the debts of the stricken conglomerate Dubai World as the city state's debt crisis continues to haunt the world's financial markets.

After the Abu Dhabi stock market suffered its biggest ever one-day fall today as investors returned after the Eid holiday, Dubai's top finance official appeared on Dubai TV to insist there was "no need to worry".

But Abdulrahman al-Saleh, director general of Dubai's department of finance, caused a surprise by saying that the emirate's government will not guarantee Dubai World's $59bn (£36bn) debts. He warned that creditors will suffer "short-term" pain.

"Creditors need to take part of the responsibility for their decision to lend to the companies. They think Dubai World is part of the government, which is not correct," he said.

"Dubai World was established as an independent company, it is true that the government is the owner, but given that the company has various activities and is exposed to various types of risks, the decision, since its establishment, has been that the company is not guaranteed by the [Dubai] government." .

Last night, the UAE central bank announced it would honour the debts of Dubai's banks, in an attempt to calm the panic. However, this guarantee did not extend to Dubai World's debts, which led some analysts to speculate that its lenders could suffer heavy losses.

Investors across the United Arab Emirates rushed to sell shares as soon as trading began this morning, taking their first opportunity to respond to Dubai's woes. After a four-hour trading session, the Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange closed 8.31% lower ? the worst decline in its history. The National Bank of Abu Dhabi tumbled by 9.7%, amid fears that the region's banking sector will suffer major damage.

Stock markets across the UAE have been closed since Wednesday to mark the Muslim Eid al-Adha festival. That was the day when the state-owned conglomerate Dubai World shocked the markets by asking for a six-month delay in repaying some of its debt.

In Dubai today, shares fell by the most since October 2008, when the banking crisis was raging. The main Dubai index fell by 7.3%, with Dubai World losing nearly 15%. This came after Nakheel, Dubai World's real-estate arm, asked for trading in three of its bonds to be suspended.

Rating agency Moody's also warned today that the crisis could have major implications for the UAE. "The contagion effect for Abu Dhabi will be unavoidable, as doubts will be raised as to how Dubai is going to finance its growth," said its analysts in a research note.

Moody's added that a restructuring of Dubai World's debts could lead it to cut its rating on banks across the UAE.

Dubai World's request to defer repaying its debt has already sparked fears of a wider collapse, with shares falling sharply on Wall Street last Friday, and in London the day before. However, there is anger within the country that the crisis has been overhyped. Sales of the Sunday Times were reportedly blocked across the UAE, and local media have run articles defending Dubai's leaders. One newspaper ran the headline "Global outcry over Dubai World restructuring is exaggerated". After the region's stock markets closed today, Gulfnews.com reported simply that "UAE markets end lower on sentiment".

In London, the FTSE 100 was down by 21 points at 14.45 at 5224. Banks were among the biggest fallers, including Royal Bank of Scotland which is thought to have arranged more Dubai debt than any other bank in the past two years.

The Dow Jones industrial average was down slightly 6 points in early trading on Wall Street where investors were encouraged by retail sales over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend.

Washington shootings suspect 'killed'

Explosions and shots heard as police searching for man suspected of killing four officers surround a house in Seattle

Detectives hunting the killer of four police officers who were shot dead yesterday in a suburban US coffee shop think their suspect may have died from gunshot wounds.

Officers searching for Maurice Clemmons, a 37-year-old convicted criminal, swooped on a house in Seattle early this morning. Witnesses heard explosions, shots and glass breaking as police negotiators urged Clemmons to give himself up.

Ed Troyer, a spokesman for the Pierce county sheriff, later told reporters: "We have determined that in fact he has been shot. He may be deceased from his gunshot wound."

Troyer said his officers had spoken to witnesses at the cafe in Parkland, south of Seattle, who confirmed Clemmons was hit in an exchange of fire with one of his four victims.

It was not clear whether Clemmons had been shot again by officers surrounding the house or died from his original injuries.

The officers ? three men and a woman, all from the local police force in Lakewood, Washington state ? had been preparing paperwork for their morning duties and working on laptops at the Forza cafe when they were attacked.

Police negotiators tried to persuade Clemmons to come out of the house, which is about 30 miles from the original crime scene. Using a loudspeaker, one negotiator said: "Mr Clemmons, I'd like to get you out of there safely. I can tell you this, we are not going away."

It was not clear whether the police received any response from inside, but soon afterwards they began using sirens outside and there were several loud bangs before the negotiator resumed speaking.

He added: "This is one of the toughest decisions you'll make in your life, but you need to man up."

It has emerged that Clemmons had a long prison sentence commuted by the former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

Clemmons has an extensive criminal record and was recently charged for third-degree assault on a police officer and second-degree rape of a child.

In 1989 Clemmons, then 17, was convicted for aggravated robbery. He was paroled in 2000 after Huckabee, then governor of Arkansas and now a Fox News presenter, commuted his 95-year prison sentence.

Huckabee, who was criticised during his run for the presidential nomination in 2008 for the number of clemencies he granted, cited Clemmons's age at the time of the sentence.

After his release Clemmons broke his parole and was returned to prison in July 2001. He was released on 18 March 2004, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper.

The four dead officers have been named as Mark Renninger, 39; Ronald Owens, 37; Tina Griswold, 40; and Greg Richards, 42.

Ed Troyer said the attack was clearly targeted at the officers and was not a robbery that had gone wrong. "This was more of an execution," he said. "Walk in with the specific mindset to shoot police officers."

Follow the Iraq inquiry ? LIVE

Minute-by-minute coverage of what could be the most interesting hearing yet

4.13pm: Chilcot asks about the timing of the decision to invade. What did the UK think about the performance of the weapons inspectors?

Manning wants to go back to 1441. The UN wanted a declaration from Saddam relating to his WMD and for him to allow unfettered access to the inspectors.

Manning says Iraq had an opportunity to avoid military action.

Manning says he personally believed the inspections should have been given more time to work. Although they had not found "the smoking gun", they had "not been wholly disappointing". At some sites they had found some "quite interesting material". He "regretted" that the process ended when it did. But by that stage the US was convinced that these provisions were not working and that a second resolution was impossible.

4.05pm: Sir Roderic Lyne asks if Blair considered whether or not to take part in military action when it became clear that all his conditions were not being met.

Manning says he thinks there was some reconsideration.

Lyne asks what sort of meetings Blair held in the run-up to Crawford.

Manning says there were meetings of ministers "inside the ring of secrecy", including the foreign secretary and the defence secretary.

But it would be "misleading" to suggest that there were major shifts Blair could articulate before Crawford. Blair was still trying to find out what the Americans were thinking.

It would not be right to say that in February and March Blair was articulating a new policy. Once it became clear that the Americans had changed their view, he was keen to ensure they went down the UN route. Blair did not see this as a moment of decision.

Lyne says that Meyer suggested that containment was a "dead duck" by this time. What sort of options review was taking place in London?

Manning says London had not completely given up on containment at this point. "I don't think [Blair] thought when he went to Crawford that it was likely that the president would accept containment any longer." But Blair did think there was "everything to play for" in terms of shaping US policy.

3.59pm: Freedman asks about the five tests for military intervention laid out in Blair's 1999 Chicago speech: being sure of one's case, using military action as a last resort, military action being feasible, being prepared for the long term, and military action being in the national interest.

Manning says he does not remember these five criteria being considered. But he thinks that they were implicit in the decision to involve the UN.

Freedman (who helped to write the Chicago speech) says that's a pity.

3.53pm: Manning is now on post-war planning.

He says the British thought the US state department would be in charge. But it was the Pentagon that took responsibility.

Freedman asks if the British realised there was a problem before March 2003.

Manning says it was a subject of concern. The British insisted on a role for the UN in post-war Iraq. Manning himself thought there was a risk of "very considerable dislocation" after the war.

Manning says some in America thought that post-war Iraq would be like post-war Germany or Japan. That was the "neocon wishful-thinking thesis". Others, particularly in the state department, thought things would be more complicated.

Freedman asks when the British learnt the state department would not be in charge of post-war Iraq. Manning says he thinks that was in February.

3.48pm: Freedman asks about the "conditionality" set by Blair, covering the Middle East etc. Were these conditions? Or were they things Blair thought would be sensible?

Manning says Blair felt they were both "sensible and essential".

Manning says Blair also believed there had to be an effort to explain what was happening.

Freedman says, in relation to the Middle East, it is difficult to see how any "condition" was being met.

Manning concedes that this is true. He says that Blair was pressing for a Middle East conference that did not happen.

Blair also wanted to publish information, so that the public could understand what was going on.

It seems that Manning wants to talk about the September Iraq dossier. But Freedman keeps taking him back to the Middle East.

Manning says Blair pushed for the publication of a road map to peace in the Middle East. In the summer of 2002 Bush said he wanted to see a two-state solution in the Middle East. The British pushed for the publication of a road map. It was "very hard pounding". The Americans eventually published one in 2003. But it was "the triumph of hope over experience" because it did not lead to peace.

3.44pm: Freedman asks if the US asked Britain to be involved in the new policy. Or did Britain offer to be involved?

Manning says it was not as clear as that. In the hectic weeks after 9/11 it was very uncertain what was going to happen. Blair's sense was that it was vital to bring together the broadest possible international coalition.

3.41pm: They're back. Sir Lawrence Freedman asks if Crawford represented a "step change" in policy.

Manning says he is not sure whether the speech Blair delivered on that visit represented the first time Blair had said "regime change" in public. Sir Christopher Meyer told the inquiry last week that he thought it was the first time Blair had said that in public.

3.36pm: Here's the full quote about the Blair delaying making a military commitment.

I think there probably was some uneasinness in the MoD about the lateness of the decisions. I think that was one reason why, although the prime minister took no decisions in July, he was pressed again in September. And it had particular implications, of course, if in the end the British government decided for option 3 [See post at 2.52pm] ... There was a sense in the MoD, probably, that we had to try and ensure that the policy that we were following diplomatically did not mean that we were excluding military options. My impression was that he was reluctant to take these decisions until he had to, that some might have said he went beyond the ideal of when he had to, he left it quite late. But I think he always felt that he wanted to give the sense that the diplomatic approach in the United Nations was paramount.

3.26pm: What have we learnt so far? The key point is that Manning has said that Blair told Bush in July 2002 that it would be "impossible" for Britain to support the Americans in military action against Iraq if the US refused to involve the UN. (See 2.23pm) We've always known that Blair said that he wanted to go down the UN route. But I'm not sure that we've heard this expressed as non-negotiatiable condition before.

The other point that was particularly interesting was Manning's concession that Blair may have delayed the final decision to commit to military action until too late. (See 3.04pm).

3.24pm: Chilcot says he's going to take a break for 10 minutes.

3.19pm: Prashar asks if Blair was receiving the best advice from the MoD.

Manning says the original plan was for British troops to go into northern Iraq. That was the plan until the end of 2002.

In early 2003 Rice phoned Manning to say the Turks were refusing to cooperate. At that stage the British were asked to adapt their planning. It was "quite a remarkable achievement" that they were so able to change so quickly.

Manning says "as an armchair general" he had his misgivings about the campaign. He was worried about the capacity of British troops to fight in a WMD environment. He was concerned about the British having to change their plans. And he was worried what would happen in Baghdad.

In the event, he was "wrong on every count", Manning says.

He says he asked the military chiefs of staff to go over these points with Blair on January 15 2003. The chiefs of staff proved to be right.

3.14pm: Prashar goes back to military planning. Why did the UK decide to participate on the scale that it did?

Manning says that by the time the diplomatic track collapsed, Blair felt he had to take part because he had said Britain would. He wanted to be "as good as his word". He felt that it was right and that "if it was right, it was worth doing properly".

Manning says Blair had used military force before, in Sierra Leone, in Kosovo and in Afghanistan.

Manning mentions the speech Blair gave in Chicago in 1999 entitled "the doctrine of international community". (This is the speech that Sir Lawrence Freedman, a member of the inquiry, helped to write.)

In the speech Blair mention Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, Manning says.

3.12pm: Chilcot asks if information was distributed properly in Whitehall.

Manning says he thinks the information-sharing system worked well. He did not think there was a problem of communication.

3.04pm: Prashar asks if going down the UN route affected British military planning.

Manning says he thinks there probably was "some uneasiness in the MoD about the lateness of decisons". He stresses that he is not a military expert.

Blair was told that if he wanted to deploy a large force, it would take six months to get it ready. Manning says his impression was that Blair was reluctant to take these decision until he had to. Some might have felt that he left it quite late.

Prashar asks if military planning "constrained" the diplomatic room for manoeuvre.

3.00pm: Prashar asks if any conditions were attached to UK participation.

Manning says Blair was clear all the way through on the need to go down the UN route. And he was clear that there had to be progress in the Middle East. Those were "conditions" in his mind, Manning says.

Manning says planning for "the day after" was also important to Blair.

Prashar asks if British participation was inevitable.

Manning says he did not think so. When he went to the US in July, he made it very clear that Britain would only participate if the Americans involved the UN.

Blair's view was that going through the UN was "absolutely essential".

2.58pm: Prashar asks how important the British contribution was to the Americans.

Manning says he's not a military expert but he things "we should not exaggerate the importance" of the British military contribution.

The Americans could have done the operation without the UK. But he thinks they were "grateful" to have a sizeaable UK contribution.

Prashar asks if that means that the British contribution was unnecessary.

Manning says the Americans thought it was desirable to have the British involved.

2.52pm: Prashar asks about military planning.

Manning says Blair first asked for military options in June 2002. By this stage he knew the Americans were considering military options.

In July 2002 a letter was sent to Number 10 from the Defence Secretary's office saying they had identified three possibilities: first, the in-place support package, involving British assets already in the region; second, the enhanced support package, the same as (1) with addition maritime and air support; and, third, the discreet UK package, involving sending about 20,000 troops.

Those papers went to Blair in July. He said he did not want to accept any of these options. He did not want to give any signal that he wanted to think about any alternative to going down the UN route. Over the summer no decision was taken.

In September Manning says the MoD were asked if they wanted to send a team to a US planning meeting. Blair said the MoD was authorised to say "on an entirely contingent basis" that Britain might be willing to send the enhanced support package. Over time, it was agreed to move to package three, the "discreet package".

2.50pm: Chilcot asks about Crawford. Did Blair and Bush have a shared view that, however things ended up, they would still be together?

Manning says Chilcot will have to ask Blair.

He says Blair wanted to disarm Iraq. If that led to regime change, so much the better. But regime change was not the policy.

Blair also thought that it was important that the US was not left to deal with these problems on its own.

So he probably expected to be with the US at the end, Manning says.

2.46pm: Chilcot asks whether regime change was inevitable.

Manning says the Americans said that if Saddam accepted UN security council 1441, the situation on the ground would have changed so much that you could conclude that the regime had changed itself.

Manning says some Americans thought the UN route was very unlikely to work. On the British side, "there was less scepticism and more hope". But there was also "realism" about Saddam. "I don't think the British government went into this thinking we were bound to fail."

2.42pm: Sir John Chilcot asks what the result of going down the "UN route" was thought to be. Did that include containment?

Manning says that after 9/11 there was no support for containment any more in the US.

By the summer of 2002 the British had concluded that the containment policy was decaying. It was thought it would "progressively unravel". The view in London was that containment was no longer ...

UK to send 500 more Afghan troops

Defence secretary Bob Ainsworth confirms new deployment after conditions laid down by Gordon Brown are met

The defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, today confirmed that 500 more British troops would be sent to Afghanistan.

Gordon Brown pledged "in principle" last month to boost the British deployment to 9,500 soldiers subject to three conditions.

In a statement later today, setting out the next stage of his strategy for the conflict, the prime minister will say all three conditions for the extra 500 troops to be sent have been met.

Speaking at a training facility in Norfolk, Ainsworth said the equipment requirements for the reinforcement had been reached.

"We are checking, as we have been for several months, the first condition the prime minister imposed on uplifting our force numbers in Afghanistan ? that is that we have sufficient equipment for the troops that we deploy," he said.

The other conditions imposed by Brown were a commitment by the Afghan government to train sufficient homegrown forces and that the extra troops would form part of a deployment in which each country with troops in Afghanistan bore its "fair share".

Ainsworth said last month that the extra troops would come from the Chester-based 1st Battalion the Royal Welsh.

The chief of defence staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, who accompanied the defence secretary as he met soldiers from the First Battalion of the Duke of Lancaster Regiment at the training facility, said: "The force level increase of 500 represents between 10 and 15% increase in terms of the boots on the ground patrolling in Helmand.

"In terms of the equipment increase, since August this year it has risen between 33% and almost 100%, so the level of equipment has gone up far more than the level of forces will be going up."

Brown chaired a meeting of the national security, international relations and development committee in London today to assess the three conditions.

Speaking at the weekend, he said an international conference would be held in London on 28 January to secure agreements from the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, for the training of 50,000 new troops, a beefed-up police force and action to tackle corruption.

The conference is designed to prepare the way for the gradual handover of provinces to Afghan control ? at least five by the end of next year ? which could lead to British forces being brought home.

Brown stressed that no timetable was being set for scaling back the UK force, which will happen only when Afghans are able to provide their own security.

He has already voiced confidence that Nato and allies other than the US would come up with 5,000 more troops in an intensification of the international effort.

After months of deliberation, Barack Obama is expected to announce tomorrow that he will send up to 35,000 more US troops to Afghanistan.

Brown will hold a final video conference with the US president before Obama delivers his address at the West Point military academy.

Ainsworth said he hoped Obama would announce a "significant increase" in troop numbers, saying: "It will give them [the troops] the kind of density they need to really take on the insurgents at the kind of speed that we want them to in order to make progress, and to bring on the Afghan national army themselves.

"Because the whole idea is not that we take over in any permanent way the security of Afghanistan, but that we grow the capability of the Afghan national army and the police force so that they can protect their own country and to do that in as short a timescale as is reasonably possible."

Brown also anticipated what is expected to be one of the main themes of Obama's statement ? Anglo-US frustration at Pakistan's failure to capture Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Britain has been encouraged by the actions of the Pakistan army in confronting al-Qaida and the Taliban in South Waziristan, where Islamabad has sent 30,000 troops, and in the North West Frontier province.

But officials believe more needs to be done to confront Pakistani state agencies such as the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. The ISI encouraged the Taliban and Kashmiri extremist groups in the 1990s.

"The Pakistan government has started to take on the Taliban and to take on al-Qaida in South Waziristan," Brown told the BBC.

"But we have got to ask ourselves why, eight years after September 11, nobody has been able to spot or detain or get close to Osama bin Laden, nobody has been able to get close to Zawahiri.

"We have got to ask the Pakistani security forces, army and politicians to join us in the major effort that the world is committing resources to, not only to isolate al-Qaida but to break them in Pakistan."

Islamabad reacted angrily to the comments. Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan's high commissioner to Britain, told BBC Radio 4: "Our military is fully engaged in these operations, so what do people want?"

I'm to blame for crash, says Woods

World's best golfer breaks silence following his accident outside his Florida home on Friday

Tiger Woods tried to end the whirl of speculation surrounding the car crash outside his home in Florida three days ago, saying the accident was "my fault" and praising his wife, Elin Nordegren, for acting "courageously" in coming to his aid.

In a carefully worded statement on his website, the golfer, whose celebrity is matched by his desire for privacy, did not specifically address allegations that have been published in the US following the incident in the early hours of Friday, when he crashed his Cadillac 4x4 into a fire hydrant and then a tree. He described the reports as "irresponsible".

"This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way. Although I understand there is curiosity, the many false, unfounded and malicious rumours that are currently circulating about my family and me are irresponsible," he said, hours before he was due to meet officers from the Florida highway patrol.

It emerged shortly after that a Florida-based criminal defence lawyer, Mark NeJame, acting on behalf of Woods and his wife, had contacted police to cancel that meeting ? the third such time an attempt by law enforcement officials to meet the couple to discuss the accident had been denied.

Woods, who was reportedly left with cuts and bruises to his face after the accident, said yesterday he was "feeling pretty sore".

"This situation is my fault, and it's obviously embarrassing to my family and me. I'm human and I'm not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn't happen again.

"The only person responsible for the accident is me. My wife, Elin, acted courageously when she saw I was hurt and in trouble. She was the first person to help me. Any other assertion is absolutely false.

"I would also ask for some understanding that my family and I deserve some privacy no matter how intrusive some people can be."

His agent Mark Steinberg told CNBC: "We have been informed by the Florida highway patrol that further discussion with them is both voluntary and optional.

After Woods crashed outside his home on a private estate near Orlando it was reported he was rescued by his wife, who smashed the vehicle's rear window with a golf club to gain entry. But there have since been a series of extraordinary claims in the US media, most of them from the "celebrity gossip" website TMZ, alleging the golfer's injuries may not have been sustained as result of the car crash, that the couple were allegedly involved in a domestic argument, and that as the golfer drove away from his home his wife struck the car several times with the golf club. It was subsequently alleged that a dispute between the couple may have arisen as a result of claims in the National Enquirer magazine that Woods was having an "affair" with a New York nightclub hostess, Rachel Uchitel.

Uchitel travelled to Los Angeles today to meet Gloria Allred, one the most visible and voluble "celebrity" lawyers in the US. Whatever plans Allred has for her client, they are unlikely to chime with Woods's hopes that this affair disappears from the front pages and cable news networks as quickly as possible.

Although Tiger realizes that there is a great deal of public curiosity, it has been conveyed to FHP that he simply has nothing more to add and wishes to protect the privacy of his family," he added.

The appeal for people to respect his privacy, and the condemnation of those whom he believes have been intruding upon it, was to be expected from Woods. Despite being the world's  most recognisable athlete, with all the influence that status bestows, he has also steered clear of any subjects, politics and race issues being the most notable, that might be described as controversial. 

Very little is known of his private life beyond the fact of his marriage to Nordegren, the daughter of a Swedish politician, and that the couple have two children, Charlie, aged two, and Sam, seven months.

In an October posting on his Facebook account, Woods wrote, "I'm asked why people don't often see me and Elin in gossip magazines or tabloids. I think we've avoided a lot of media attention because we're kind of boring."

Whether or not he will be able to hold back the tide of speculation that has engulfed his carefully nurtured reputation over the last three days remains to be seen. He is due to make his first public appearance since the accident at a press conference tomorrow in southern California, at his annual golf tournament, the Chevron World Challenge, at Sherwood country club.

In normal circumstances, his meeting with the media would concentrate on the event ? it raises funds for his charitable foundation ? and the state of his golf game but, assuming Woods does not withdraw because of his injuries, it now threatens to rival Michael Jackson's funeral as one of the most watched cable news events of the year.

Nazi accused's 'victim' plea rejected

Nazi death camp guard accused of role in murder of 27,900 Jews 'was himself a victim'

The lawyer for a former Nazi death camp guard has shocked a Munich courtroom by claiming that his client, John Demjanjuk, was just as much a victim as those imprisoned in the camp.

Demjanjuk, 89, who has leukaemia, was pushed into a court in a wheelchair and accompanied by medical staff to answer charges that he was an accomplice in the murder of 27,900 Jews. Wrapped in a blanket, wearing a baseball cap and with his head tilted back as if he was asleep, he kept his eyes closed throughout the 75-minute opening session.

Demjanjuk's lawyer, Ulrich Busch, immediately submitted an appeal to the judge to abandon the trial on the grounds that his client had "been a victim". He listed a string of more senior camp guards, some of them members of the SS, who had been tried for their roles in the Sobibor death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland but had either received minimal sentences or been exonerated of any wrongdoing.

How, Busch asked, was it possible that Demjanjuk, a "subordinate" to those men, who had been forced to work at the camp as a Nazi prisoner of war, was standing trial? "He is as much as victim as those people who were imprisoned in the camp but he is being treated as if he was a mass murderer, when in fact he didn't even have any choice whether he was there or not." His statement brought gasps from the public gallery.

Judge Ralph Alt dismissed Busch's appeal after the state prosecutor Hans Joachim Lutz, who is also a historical legal expert, told the court that previous trials of Sobibor operators had only resulted in lenient or negligible sentences "due to mistakes of the German judicial system, and [this] should not be repeated here and now". From the end of the second world war into the 1980s, of the few Nazi trials that took place in Germany, very many were thrown out or deemed insignificant by much of the German judiciary ? which had itself undergone only a very cursory de-Nazification process.

Cornelius Nestler, a lawyer representing some of the co-plaintives, said it was impossible to compare the fate of someone who had been in Trawniki ? an SS training camp ? with that of a Jew who was in Sobibor. "Those in Trawniki were well fed," he said. "They drank, they could leave, they had holidays. The Jews did not. Those in Trawniki murdered, the Jews did not."

Ukrainian-born Demjanjuk, who was deported from his home in Cleveland, Ohio, in May after a 30-year judicial battle to bring him to trial, is suspected of working as a camp guard at Sobibor, where a total of 250,000 people died between spring 1942 and October 1943. The charges Demjanjuk faces relate to the period he worked there between March and September 1943.

More than 30 mainly Dutch co-plaintiffs filled the first two rows of seats in the public gallery. They included two former prisoners of Sobibor who managed to escape as well as relatives of those who died in the camp. They are due to give evidence during the trial and are allowed to put questions to the accused.

Demjanjuk, who was a Red Army soldier when he was taken prisoner by the Nazis and drafted into the notorious SS training camp, Trawniki, where he was trained as a death camp guard, did not respond when details of his identity were read out. His hands occasionally twitched under the blanket and several times he reached up and held his throat as if he was about to cough.

A court doctor who examined Demjanjuk on three occasions told the court he had a type of leukaemia ? a rare bone marrow complaint that can affect the elderly ? as well as gout, a trapped nerve in his spine and pains in his limbs, but was fit to stand trial despite his ailments and the fact that he was "a little slow" when he spoke.

About 35 days has been scheduled for the case, which could be one of the last Nazi trials. It is due to continue until May next year.

BBC shows 'routinely misled' viewers

On-air apology planned after BBC Trust finds three Reef Television shows had 'serious and repeated breaches'

The BBC has today ordered a TV production company to pay compensation over three daytime series, including one fronted by Angela Rippon, that "routinely misled" viewers.

Reef Television has been found guilty by the BBC Trust of "serious and repeated breaches" of editorial guidelines in three daytime series ? Sun, Sea and Bargain Spotting, presented by Rippon, Trash to Cash, and Dealers: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is.

Viewers were misled during the programmes, the trust ruled, by production staff appearing on screen posing as members of the public to buy items featured in the shows, buying items off screen that affected the result of the on-screen challenge, and restaging events where the genuine participants did not appear.

The company has also been told by the BBC Trust to offer an apology and reimbursement to competitors in the three shows who should have won challenges but did not. The BBC will also broadcast an on-air apology.

One edition of the BBC2 auction programme Sun, Sea and Bargain Spotting, featured a cameraman, Craig Harman, posing as a member of the public to buy an acrylic panel from a contestant, who was selling bargains on a London market stall.

The BBC Trust ruled that the three series breached editorial guidelines on misleading audiences and staging and re-staging events and banned them from being broadcast again.

BBC management has been asked by the trust to agree a sum of compensation with Reef Television to cover the cost to the licence-fee-payer of losing these shows before the independent producer can make programmes for the BBC again.

The trust concluded that BBC executive producers were unaware of the misleading practices on the Reef shows. But BBC management has been told to ensure new compliance measures are in place at the company before it can resume making shows for the corporation.

Reef Television management was unaware of the restaging of events, but assumed staff purchases were acceptable, the BBC Trust found.

Richard Tait, the chair of the BBC Trust's editorial standards committee, said Reef Television's practices had been "totally unacceptable". "The trust takes these breaches extremely seriously: we know they directly undermine the public's trust in the BBC," he added.

"The BBC must not allow its audiences to be misled. It must put steps in place to prevent this and, if misleading material is uncovered, it must be dealt with openly and firmly," Tait said.

The BBC suspended Reef Television without income three months ago when the story was first revealed in a newspaper report.

BBC management said today that it had been working with Reef during the company's suspension to "overhaul completely its compliance processes and editorial standards training".

"Following a rigorous and thorough process, the BBC is now satisfied that the company has compliance procedures and training of an appropriate standard. The BBC has, therefore, decided to lift its suspension," the BBC added.

"Reef Television will now resume work on two existing BBC projects and be free to pitch new work to the BBC in future. The BBC will review Reef Television's editorial standards performance in six months' time."

In August a statement from Reef Television, released by the BBC, said: "Reef Television wishes to apologise unreservedly for misleading Sun, Sea & Bargain Spotting viewers and the BBC.

"The company recognises it is a serious breach of editorial standards of which the BBC was not made aware. Reef Television will co-operate fully with the BBC's investigation and has launched its own inquiry."

This affair comes as a particular embarrassment to the BBC, which tightened up its compliance procedures after a string of viewer and listener deception scandals in 2007 ? and again after the Ross/Brand row in late 2008. The BBC was fined more than £500,000 in 2007 and 2008 by Ofcom over a series of TV and radio phone-in deceptions.

The BBC instigated a major overhaul of programme-making methods after shows including Children in Need, Blue Peter and Comic Relief featured phone-ins where production staff pretended to be winners.

? To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

? If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

Late cancer diagnosis 'killing 10,000 a year'

Patients and doctors to blame for UK's 'unacceptable' record

Up to 10,000 people die needlessly of cancer every year because their condition is diagnosed too late, according to research by the government's director of cancer services. The figure is twice the previous estimate for preventable deaths.

Earlier detection of symptoms could save between 5,000 and 10,000 lives in England a year, Prof Mike Richards will reveal this week. The higher figure is nearly twice his previous calculation, which put the figure at about 5,000.

Richards has revised up his estimate after studying the three deadliest forms of the disease ? lung, bowel and breast cancer ? which together kill almost 63,000 people a year.

"These delays in patients presenting with symptoms and cancer being diagnosed at a late stage inevitably cost lives. The situation is unacceptable," Richards told the Guardian.

New efforts are planned to educate the public about the signs of cancer, tackle the widespread reluctance to tell their GP if they develop symptoms, and improve family doctors' ability to spot signs of the disease earlier, he added.

Britain is poor by international standards at diagnosing cancer. Richards's findings will add urgency to the NHS's efforts to improve early diagnosis.

They also raise further questions about how often family doctors fail to recognise telltale signs.  

Experts say early diagnosis can be the difference between a patient living for a short or long time or deciding whether they need surgery, such as a mastectomy, or not because quick access to surgery, drugs or radiotherapy greatly improves chances of survival.

In an article in the forthcoming British Journal of Cancer, which is published by Cancer Research UK, Richards will say: "Efforts now need to be directed at promoting early diagnosis for the very large number (over 90%) of cancer patients who are diagnosed as a result of their symptoms, rather than by screening.

"The National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative [NAEDI] has been established to co-ordinate and drive efforts in this area. The size of the prize is large ? potentially 5,000 to 10,000 deaths that occur within five years of diagnosis could be avoided every year."

Richards reached his conclusions after analysing one-year survival rates for the three cancers in England and comparing them with those in other European countries in the late 1990s. Previously he had looked at the number of patients who were still alive five years after diagnosis.

One-year survival is now thought to be a much better indicator of whether diagnosis was early or late.

The study focused on Britain's three biggest cancer killers: lung, which killed 34,589 people in 2007; colon (16,087); and breast (12,082). They account for 40% of the 155,484 cancer deaths in the UK in 2007 and, Richards found, about half of all the deaths that could have been avoided if diagnosis was as good as the best- performing European countries.

Richards found that "late diagnosis was almost certainly a major contributor to poor survival in England for all three cancers", but also identified low rates of surgical intervention being received by cancer patients as another key reason for poor survival rates.

Research by academics at Durham University led by Prof Greg Rubin has identified five types of delay in NHS cancer care: "patient delay", "doctor delay", "delay in primary care [at GPs' surgeries]", "system delay" and "delay in secondary care [at hospitals]".

The new initiative is intended to "fix this problem", helping the UK's 53,000 GPs improve their ability to identify patients who may have cancer, said Richards.

With smoking in decline "early diagnosis is our next big challenge in cancer and will be crucial in bringing our survival rates up to the best in Europe",  he added. Prof Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said: "Mike Richards's latest findings on cancer diagnosis are really important information and reinforce the need for GPs to put a lot of effort into ensuring that patients present [their symptoms] and have access to GPs, and that we pick up the symptoms early on, and also reflect if we can do things even better in this crucial area of healthcare, which we can.

"It's wrong to blame GPs for all these deaths, as there are many factors involved, including patients not recognising symptoms of cancer and not talking to their GP about them, especially middle-aged men. But I'm sure that we could all at times be more alert to symptoms and investigate and refer patients quicker," he added.

Sara Hiom, director of health information at Cancer Research UK, said GPs faced a difficult task in spotting cancer: "Despite cancer being a common disease, the average GP will only see one case of each of the four biggest cancers each year.

"Many of the symptoms that could be cancer turn out to be something less serious, but it's best to get things like unusual lumps, changes to moles, unusual bleeding or changes to bowel motions checked by a GP."

Early diagnosis usually means that treatment is more effective and milder for the patient, added Hiom.

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients' Association, said: "Some patients are diagnosed with cancer when they have presented with the same symptoms six months earlier.

"Patients will sometimes tell us that they had been going to see their GP for six to nine months with, say, a pain in their stomach and were told to go to the pharmacy and buy an over the counter medicine [and later are found to have cancer]."

Spanish aid workers kidnapped in Mauritania

Al-Qaida group suspected of kidnapping two men and a woman from Spanish NGO travelling in convoy

Spain's foreign ministry today confirmed that three Spanish aid workers have been kidnapped in Mauritania, probably by a group affiliated to al-Qaida that has been targeting westerners in recent years.

The two men and a woman from a Spanish NGO, Barcelona Acción Solidaria, were taken yesterday when they became separated from a convoy of 13 vehicles delivering supplies to villages in the west African country. The abduction occurred along a 240-mile road linking the capital, Nouakchott, to Nouadhibou in the north.

"The Spaniards were inside their car travelling in the humanitarian convoy which had gone to distribute humanitarian aid to the poorest of the poor of Nouadhibou when the unknown gunmen started shooting at them before kidnapping them," a police officer in Nouakchott told the Associated Press.

Spain's interior minister, Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, said that "everything indicates" that the kidnapping was the work of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

In June, the group said it had killed a British hostage it had been holding since January, in what Gordon Brown described as "a barbaric act of terrorism". British officials said there was "no reason to doubt" the claim by the group that it had killed Edwin Dyer, a 60-year-old British national who had lived most of his life in Austria and who had been travelling with other European holidaymakers in Mali when seized.

AQIM is an offshoot of the Algerian GSPC or Salafist Group for Combat and Preaching with elements from splinter groups in other countries along the African Mediterranean coast. The GSPC declared allegiance to al-Qaida in 2003, but its merger was only formally approved by Ayman al-Zawahiri in a video issued in 2006.

The GSPC itself consisted of the remnants of the GIA, or Islamic Armed Group, which fought in a vicious civil conflict in Algeria from the early 1990s through to about 1998, when it imploded in a spate of internecine violence and state assassinations.

AQIM is estimated to be only a few hundred strong, but has control over a vast territory stretching from just north of Timbuktu in Mali 370 miles north to Taoudenni, near the Mauritanian and Algerian borders. From that base, fuelled by ransoms and income from drug trafficking, it carries out attacks against tourists, police and other symbols of government authority in Niger, Mauritania and Algeria, with the ultimate aim of establishing the western end of a future Islamic caliphate that would stretch across north Africa and the Middle East.

The group has been targeting foreigners in the region for years. In 2007, gunmen in Mauritania killed four French tourists that were picnicking on the side of a highway. In 2008 the Paris-Dakar rally was cancelled after organiser's received threats of a possible attack. In the same year, the group captured two Canadian diplomats in December 2008, who were freed in April this year, and carried out a suicide attack on the French embassy in August.

Analysts say AQIM attacks on foreigners can be expected to grow as western companies increase investment in oil and gas exploration in the region. Geoff Porter, of the Eurasia consulting firm, wrote in this month's issue of CTC Sentinel, a US journal on counter-terrorism: "Even if firms minimise their expatriate personnel, AQIM has demonstrated that it views nationals working for foreign firms as legitimate targets."

Boy, four, dies after dog attack in Liverpool

Armed response officers kill dog after Jon Paul Massey dies at house in Liverpool and 63-year-old woman is injured

A four-year-old boy has died after being attacked by a dog in Liverpool.

The incident happened at a house in Wavertree, in the early hours. The child suffered serious injuries and died at the scene, Merseyside police said. He was named locally as Jon Paul Massey.

A 63-year-old woman, who is believed to have been injured as she separated the dog from Jon Paul, was taken to hospital for treatment.

Dog handlers and armed response officers attended the house in Ashgrove at 12.24am and, after a safety assessment, killed the dog. Officers are trying to establish the type of dog involved. Neighbours described it as a pit bull type, which is thought to have belonged to Jon Paul's uncle, a serving soldier.

Chief Superintendent Steve Ashley said: "This is a tragic incident and a full and thorough investigation will be carried out into the circumstances surrounding this young boy's death. Officers are with the family and our sympathies are with them at this time.

"Of utmost importance in such incidents is the safety of the public and of police officers. When officers arrived at the address the dog was in an agitated state in the front garden of the property and was deemed to be a danger to the public. As a result we were left with no other option but to have the animal destroyed quickly and humanely."

The family house was sealed off by police tape today. Neighbours said the incident happened at the home of Jon Paul's grandmother, who was babysitting him and his older brother. They spoke of their shock at the death of Jon Paul but said dogs had been causing problems in the area.

One neighbour, who did not wish to be named, said: "The barking started last night about midnight. It was very, very loud and drowned out the noise of all the traffic from the main road.

"I heard the police sirens a short time later and looked outside my window and saw an ambulance."

The neighbour added: "They are a lovely family, very close to each other and he was a lovely little lad.

"You would see him with his grandmother on the street and he always looked happy and smiling."

Gillian Watson, 46, said: "I heard a gunshot at about 2am and I presume that was when they put the dog down. It's such a terrible thing to happen to a family. There are lots of dangerous-type dogs around here.

"You always see young lads with pit bull dogs roaming around. I have a dog myself and when I take him for a walk sometimes it's quite terrifying because you think your dog is going to be attacked."

The family's parish priest, Father Peter Morgan, of St Anne's Church, Wavertree, left the house saying: "There is an awful lot of pain inside. They are broken, it is so, so sad."

Jon Paul was the fifth child to be killed by a dog since 2006. All of them were attacked at their family home.

In February Jaden Mack, aged three and a half months, was killed by a Staffordshire bull terrier and a Jack Russell, both of which were later destroyed, in Ystrad Mynach, north of Cardiff.

On New Year's Day 2007, five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson died after being mauled by a pit bull terrier belonging to her uncle in St Helens, Merseyside. In September 2006 five-month-old Caydee-Lee Glaze was mauled to death by two rottweilers at her family's pub in the Midlands, and that Christmas one-year-old Archie-Lee Hirst was killed by a family rottweiler in Leeds. After the death of Ellie a week-long "dangerous dogs" amnesty was held which saw saw more than 80 illegally-held dogs seized by police in Merseyside.

Father abandons drowning son to save wife

New Zealand man tells of agonising decision after car plunges into river

A New Zealand man who tried to rescue his family from a river has spoken of the split second in which he decided to save his wife and leave his teenage son to drown.

Stacy Horton arrived at the Whanganui river in the North Island less than two minutes after his wife's car plunged into the murky waters late on Saturday night.

The vehicle had been carrying Vanessa Horton, 35, their 13-year-old son, Silva, one of his friends and the family's dog.

Mr Horton said he got to the scene of the crash to hear his wife screaming in the darkness and to see his son's friend and the dog scrambling up the river bank.

But his son was trapped in the submerged estate car, which lay nose down in the river with its rear lights still visible 3ft (one metre) below the surface.

"I tried to get down and get him but I couldn't ? it was just too deep," Mr Horton told the Dominion Post newspaper. "I made a call to pull my wife to safety. I looked back and I could see the tail lights but it was too far and I couldn't get him."

He added: "Instead of going down and risking my life as well as my wife and son's, I chose to take Vanessa back and sat on the shore praying. It was all I could do."

Police and fire crew were also unable to rescue the boy from inside the car. Silva Horton's body was recovered by divers the next day.

Kim Perks, a spokeswoman for Mid-Central police, said Mr Horton's decision must have been agonising. "I would certainly not have wanted to be in his shoes," she said.

Gary Wilson, a senior fire officer, said the water was dark and murky and that firefighters had struggled in vain to reach the car. "We tried everything but to no avail," he said.