ANTELIAS: HH Aram I Receives Management Of "Sat 7" Satellite Channel

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V.Rev.Fr.Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version: nian.htm

HIS HOLINESS ARAM I RECEIVES THE MANAGEMENT OF THE "SAT 7" SATELLITE CHANNEL

His Holiness Aram I received the director of the satellite television
channel "Sat 7", Terrance Eskot, and the directors of the programming and
broadcasting departments, Rita El-Mounayer and Naji Daoud in Bikfaya on
August 14. Communications Officer of the Catholicosate of Cilicia, V. Rev.
Krikor Chiftjian, also attended the meeting.

The directors of the channel talked about the religious programs of their
annual programming plan and explained the channel’s main objectives. The
Catholicos praised the channel’s wide-ranging programs on Christianity,
pointing out that it plays a fruitful role with respect to the presence of
Christianity in the Middle East.

The two sides also discussed the possibility of broadcasting programs about
the Armenian Church. The meeting became an important opportunity to exchange
views and make future plans, opening up new possibilities of cooperation
between the Catholicosate of Cilicia and the channel.

It is worth mentioning that the regular meetings of the "Sat-7" committee
are held in Cyprus. Archbishop Sebouh Sarkisian represents the Catholicosate
of Cilicia in these meetings.

##
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the history and
the mission of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician
Catholicosate, the administrative center of the church is located in
Antelias, Lebanon.

http://www.armenianorthodoxchurch.org/
http://www.armenianorthodoxchurch.org/v04/doc/Arme
http://www.armenianorthodoxchurch.org

Will ‘No Place for Hate’ debate spread?

The Watertown Tab

x676312106

Will ‘No Place for Hate’ debate spread?

—————————————– ———————–
Photo by Jillian Fennimore and Chris Helms

Town Council voted to sever ties between Watertown and the "No Place for

Hate" anti-bigotry program. This sign came down shortly after the Aug.
14 vote. (Photo illustration)

By Jillian Fennimore, Staff Writer
GateHouse News Service
Thu Aug 16, 2007, 12:21 PM EDT

——————————————— ——————-

WATERTOWN, MA –

The sign is down. Watertown has cut its ties to the Anti Defamation
League’s "No Place for Hate" anti-bigotry program over the ADL’s stance
on the Armenian Genocide.

So what does the future hold, and will Watertown’s decision prompt a
national "No Place for Hate" controversy?

At-Large Councilor Marilyn Devaney – after pushing forward a unanimous
vote for a proclamation to rescind the relationship with the ADL – said
she would lobby the other 50-plus "No Place for Hate" communities in the
state to do the same.

State Rep. Rachel Kaprielian, D-Watertown, is also on board. She plans
to gain support from scholars on the subject of the Armenian Genocide
and rally supporters of all backgrounds to urge other "No Place for
Hate" towns to sever their ADL ties.

"This isn’t a bunch of Armenians saying ‘stand up for us’," she said.
"This is the fact of the matter. It really is an outrage . we need to
yield some results."

Controversy began last month when the TAB & Press published a letter
that highlighted statements from ADL’s national director, Abraham
Foxman, that Congress should play no role in recognizing the Armenian
Genocide. Some have classified his words as "genocide denial" regarding
what most historians agree was a campaign waged against ethnic Armenians
by the Ottoman government during and after World War I.

>From 1915 to 1923, as many as 1.5 million Armenians died.

On Tuesday night, there was no denying the intense emotion and
aggravation inside the Council Chambers.

Close to 100 Armenian-Americans packed the room and spilled into the
hallway, some speaking passionately to council members in anticipation
of their decision.

"Armenian-Americans have never asked the ADL to be the arbiter of
Armenian history," said Arman Baghdoyan. "What concerns me seriously is
the injection of a sectarian agenda in the political life of the
peaceful town of Watertown in the form of a ‘No Place for Hate’ campaign

by the ADL."

Narini Badalian, a 25-year-old Watertown resident, silenced the crowd
with her words and left the podium to applause.

"I’ve learned not to be bullied by politics and stand up against hatred,
to stand up against bigotry, to stand up against racism," she said. "ADL
does not have a monopoly on battling intolerance."

David Boyajian of Newton, who wrote the letter that sparked the
controversy, labeled the ADL as an "unfair sponsor."

"There is no reason why you can’t be independent and function just
fine," he said.

And that’s what Watertown plans to do, said Will Twombly, co-chairperson
of the "No Place for Hate" committee. For now, at least.

In an amendment to the Town Council proclamation, Twombly asked for 90
days for the 13-member committee to continue to pressure the ADL to
change its stance, create new alliances within the community and seek
program funding to continue its anti-bigotry agenda and public education
work.

"We find the ADL’s decision unacceptable," he said. "Such atrocities
should not be ignored or passed off as someone else’s problem."

To a reaction of "boos" and taunts of "liar" from the crowd, ADL
Regional Director Andrew Tarsy stood at the podium and pleaded to keep
"No Place for Hate" in Watertown.

"ADL’s mission and duty is to protect and defend Jewish communities and
seek justice for all people," he said. "Look at the record. It’s not
just the pain and emotion this is certainly causing to have this
discussion."

Tarsy said the ADL has never denied what happened at the close of the
First World War. Their mission now is to urge the Turkish government to
reconcile with Armenians.

On Tuesday night, that did not sit well with the crowd, as shouts of
"genocide," "baloney" and "denial" filled the room and stirred tension.

"Some statements are plain untrue about the organization," Tarsy added.

But others spoke to the council with inclinations that the ADL’s stance
on the genocide will remain.

"Ninety days or 90 years, it wouldn’t make the ADL change their
decision," said John DiMascio, who writes a column for the TAB & Press.
"Tear down that silly [No Place for Hate] sign and send it back to the
ADL postage due."

By 10 p.m. Tuesday, it was taken down by the Department of Public Works.

"No Place for Hate" aims to be a community-based campaign established by
the ADL and geared to bring awareness to and fight against
anti-Semitism, racism and all other forms of bigotry. Some 50 cities
throughout Massachusetts are termed "No Place for Hate" zones, and
participation is growing throughout the United States.

Grace Kulegian, representing theArmenian National Committee of Eastern
Massachusetts, said the controversy was not invited by Watertown, but
there is plan to see a solution through.

"We are confident that the just resolution of this matter will deepen
Watertown’s commitment to tolerance, strengthen "No Place for Hate’s"
ability to speak with real moral clarity, and for the sake of its
members and its own future as an organization, end the ADL’s truly
unfortunate affiliation with genocide denial," she said.

At-Large Councilor Mark Sideris said Watertown is in a spot now that
could affect politics throughout the country.

"We are sending a message across the nation," he said.

As the sole Armenian on the now-rescinded "No Place for Hate" committee,
Ruth Tomasian said there are many people who are on board in creating a
new future for the community.

"Watertown is at the center of this controversy," she said. "It’s about
where we are going from here."

http://www.townonline.com/watertown/homepage/

Lessons Of Empire: India, 60 Years After Independence

LESSONS OF EMPIRE: INDIA, 60 YEARS AFTER INDEPENDENCE
by Nick Robins and Pratap Chatterjee, Special to CorpWatch

CorpWatch.org, CA

Aug 14 2007

Cartoon by Khalil Bendib

Two villagers who left their mud and wood huts last month to travel
to London — Kumuti Majhi and Phulme Majhi — were a stark contrast to
the 212,000 wealthy Indians who visited Britain last year on shopping
expeditions where they outspent Japanese tourists. The villagers’
mission, rather than the acquisition of designer clothing or the latest
electronics, was to try to save the livelihoods of their small tribe
that grows millet, fruit and spices in the lushly-forested Niyamgiri
hills in eastern India.

On August 1, 2007, the Majhis spoke out at the annual general meeting
of Vedanta Resources PLC, a British multinational that is poised to
dig a new bauxite mine that threatens the village of Jaganathpur.

While Vedanta is incorporated in Britain, it is owned by Anil Agarwal,
the world’s 230th richest man according to the Forbes 2007 list,
a former scrap metal merchant who was born in eastern India.

(See Vedanta Undermines Indian Communities, by Nityanand Jayaraman.)

The timing of the Mahji’s trip to Britain and the protests back in
India have a much wider significance. 2007 is marked by a trinity
of anniversaries that recall India’s conquest, first struggles and
eventual liberation from British rule. On August 14th, India celebrates
60 years of independence. Earlier in the year, commemorations took
place for the 150th anniversary of the great rebellion against
British rule in 1857 — known in the UK as the ‘mutiny’ and on the
sub-continent as the ‘first war of independence.’ This trinity of
historic milestones is completed with the 250th anniversary of the
pivotal battle of Plassey in June 1757, when the private army of
Britain’s East India Company (which was often referred to simply as
the "Company") defeated the forces of the Nawab (ruler) of Bengal
(in eastern India), ushering in first corporate and then imperial
domination.

It is this legacy of collusion between global corporations and
the expansionist state that makes this year so poignant and full
of enduring lessons. Its history provides timeless lessons on how
(and how not) to confront corporate power with protest, litigation,
regulation, rebellion and, ultimately, corporate redesign. Many of
today’s corporate struggles are prefigured in the resistance to the
Company’s rise to power. Again and again, "the return of the East
India Company" is used as a catch-phrase to describe the recent influx
of multinationals into India, whether global mining corporations or
foreign business more generally.

And the Mahji’s journey follows in the footsteps of others who have
travelled to London to seek redress from corporate abuse. In August
1769, for example, two Armenian merchants, Johannes Rafael and Gregore
Cojamaul arrived at London’s docks. The two were rich men and had
made their fortunes in India’s most prosperous region, Bengal.

However, Rafael, Cojamaul and two others had been summarily arrested by
the Company’s chief executive in Bengal, Harry Verelst, who then held
them for more than five months under guard. When they were released,
they found that the Company had pressured its puppet, the Nawab of
Bengal, to change the rules of the game and ban all Armenians from
the Bengal market. Sailing around the world to where the Company was
headquartered, Rafael and Cojamaul appealed to its board of directors,
complaining of their "cruel and inhuman" treatment.

The striking continuity of protest over the centuries is largely buried
in today’s celebration of India’s surge to economic prominence. Tata’s
acquisition of Anglo-Dutch steel group Corus earlier in the year has
been seen by many as symbolizing the end of Britain’s era of industrial
supremacy. Tata had already bagged the UK’s iconic tea blend, Tetley,
and its automotive arm may be lining up a bid for Land Rover. Writing
recently in the Financial Times, Malvinder Hohan Singh, the chief
executive of Indian pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy, caught the mood:
"500 years ago, a company was formed in London that directly led to
British rule in India [and] there appears to be some concern that
there is evidence of a reverse trend."

This theme of reversal has also influenced India’s popular media,
most strikingly in a TV advertisement for Rajnigandha pan masala. Set
in London, the ad shows an Indian tycoon stopping his car in front of
the East India Company’s headquarters and announcing to his secretary
that he wants to buy the firm: "They ruled us for 200 years, and now
it’s our turn."

But while the media celebrates India’s rise as the new economic
emperors, they would also do well to reflect on the history of the
world’s first major multinational.

Down with the East India Company!

Established on a cold New Year’s Eve in 1600, Britain’s East India
Company is unarguably the mother of the modern corporation. In a career
spanning almost three centuries, the Company bridged the mercantilist
world of chartered monopolies and the industrial age of corporations
accountable solely to shareholders. The Company’s establishment by
royal charter, its monopoly of all trade between Britain and Asia and
its semi-sovereign privileges to rule territories and raise armies
certainly mark it out as a corporate institution from another time. Yet
in its financing, structures of governance and business dynamics,
the Company was undeniably modern.

It may have referred to its staff as servants rather than executives,
and communicated by quill pen rather than email, but the key features
of the shareholder-owned corporation are there for all to see.

Beyond its status as a corporate pioneer, the sheer size of its
operations makes the Company historically significant on a global
scale. At its height, the Company’s empire of commerce stretched
from Britain across the Atlantic and around the Cape to the Gulf and
on to India. From its headquarters at East India House on London’s
Leadenhall Street, the Company managed an extensive import-export
business. Trading posts were established at St. Helena in the
mid-Atlantic, where Napoleon drank Company coffee in exile.

‘Factories’ were also established at Basra and Bandar Abbas in the
Middle East. But it was in India that the Company’s impacts were
most profound. Some of India’s major cities grew on the back of the
Company’s trade, not least Bombay (Mumbai), Calcutta (Kolkata) and
Madras (Chennai). Beyond these coastal ports, the Company established
a huge land empire, first as an opportunistic quest for extra revenues
and later as an end in itself.

Always with an eye to the share price and their own executive perks,
the Company’s executives in India combined economic muscle with
its small, but effective private army to establish a corporate state
across large parts of the sub-continent. Plassey was the turning point
when the Company’s forces defeated the Nawab of Bengal and placed
its puppet on the throne. This is often regarded as the contest that
founded the British empire in India. But it is perhaps better viewed
as the Company’s most successful business deal, generating a windfall
profit of £2.5 million for the Company and £234,000 for Robert Clive,
the chief architect of the acquisition.

Today, this would be equivalent to a £232 million corporate windfall
and a cool £22 million success fee for Clive.

Yet, the Company’s footprint did not stop there, but stretched on to
South-East Asia and beyond to China and Japan. Penang and Singapore
were both ports purchased by the Company in an age when territories
could be bought and sold like commodities. And if India was the site
of the Company’s first commercial triumphs, it was in China that it
made its second fortune. The Company’s ‘factory’ at Canton was the
funnel through which millions of pounds of Bohea, Congo, Souchon and
Pekoe teas flowed west to Britain, Europe and the Americas. In the
other direction came first silver and later a flood of Indian-grown
opium, smuggled in chests proudly bearing the Company chop (or logo).

>From the beginning, the Company’s monopoly control over trade with
Asia had been disputed by its competitors back in Britain. But it
was with the Company’s acquisition of unprecedented economic power
following Plassey that it came to be seen as a more structural threat
to political liberty back home. For the editor of London’s Gentleman’s
Magazine, by April 1767 it had become the ‘imperious company of East
India merchants.’ For this normally sedate magazine, the prospect
was bleak and boiled down to "whether the freedom or the slavery
of this island will result." Not surprisingly, perhaps, this fiery
article was concluded with a defiant cry — "down with that rump of
unconstitutional power, the East India Company." Six years later, as
American patriots organised to counter the threat of the Company’s
newly won monopoly of the Atlantic tea trade, Rusticus’ writing in
east coast newspaper, The Alarm, also made clear his opposition:
"Their conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof,
how little they regard the Laws of Nature, the Rights, Liberties
or Lives of Men." Looking back, the uprising that eventually led to
America’s independence was sparked as much by hostility to corporate
monopoly as it was to taxation without representation.

The Company’s malpractice also featured heavily in Adam Smith’s
Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,
published in 1776. Written in the wake of the Company’s speculative
‘Bengal Bubble,’ Smith dissected the corporation as an institution
and evaluated the factors that led to its own particular crisis.

Uniquely, Smith was emphatic in downplaying the actions of individuals
as the root cause of the problems. ‘I mean not to throw any odious
imputation upon the general character of the servants of the East India
Company,’ he wrote, stressing that ‘it is the system of government,
the situation in which they are placed, that I mean to censure.’ The
problem was one of corporate design.

For Smith, the Company held the secret to one of the greatest
puzzles of his time: explaining the distribution of benefits from the
rapidly increasing integration of the world economy. "The discovery
of America, and that of a passage to the East Indies by the Cape of
Good Hope," argued Smith "are the two greatest and most important
events recorded in the history of mankind." Smith’s belief was that
the full potential of this dramatic opening had not been realized,
owing to a combination of colonies and corporations. For the natives
of both the East and West Indies, "all the commercial benefits
have been sunk and lost" in a series of "dreadful misfortunes." In
Asia, the agents of this pain were the Dutch and British East India
Companies, monopoly corporations that he condemned as "nuisances in
every respect." Not only did people pay for "all the extraordinary
profits which the company may have made," argued Smith, but they also
suffered from "all the extraordinary waste which the fraud and abuse,
inseparable from the management of the affairs of so great a company,
must necessarily have occasioned." Smith was certainly an enemy of
the over-mighty state, but he was also opposed to the over-mighty
corporation, arguing strongly against the market power of monopolies
and the speculative dynamics of stock-market listed firms.

Perhaps what infuriated the Company’s contemporaries most through the
seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was its impunity,
its ability to shrug off the consequences of its actions. For an
insidious corollary to the Company’s speculative drive for market
dominion was its willingness to engage in immense crimes safe in the
knowledge that domestic and international remedies were not in place.

A large part of the problem lay in the legal void of the time,
with courts in both Europe and Asia wholly ill-equipped for bringing
corporations and their executives to account. This did not stop the
Company’s contemporaries from trying, most notably Adam Smith’s friend,
Edmund Burke.

It was Burke who first exposed how the Company had ‘radically and
irretrievably ruined’ India through its ‘continual Drain’ of wealth
— a phrase that would haunt the next 150 years of British presence
in India. In 1783, Burke introduced to make the Company accountable
to the British Parliament, arguing that its corporate charter carried
intrinsic duties: "this nation never did give a power without imposing
a proportionable degree of responsibility." It is said that when
one of the Company’s oldest Directors, William James, read Burke’s
bill, he died of shock. When Burke’s measure failed as a result of
an unholy alliance of Court and City, he took up a hopeless struggle
to impeach the Company’s most senior executive in India, the former
governor-general, Warren Hastings. Burke was merciless in his critique,
on one occasion describing how Bengali women had been violated by the
Company’s tax collectors: "They were dragged out, naked and exposed
to the public view, and scourged before all the peoples they put the
nipples of the women into the sharp edges of split bamboos and tore
them from their bodies." For seven long years, the trial continued,
ending as expected with a grateful House of Lords acquitting Hastings
of "high crimes and misdemeanours."

To get the founder of liberal economics and the father of modern
conservatism both struggling to tame the Company says something for
the bipartisan threat that the corporation posed to Britain during the
Enlightenment. And Smith and Burke were joined by many others — poets,
playwrights and pamphleteers — who expected future generations to
take a similarly hard look at the Company’s performance. "Historians
of other nations (if not our own)," wrote the poet Richard Clarke
in 1773, "will do justice to the oppressed of India and will hand
down the Memory of the Oppressors to the latest Posterity." In the
introduction to his long satire, The Nabob, or Asiatic Plunders,
Clarke urged his countrymen "to perpetuate an honest indignation
against these enemies of mankind."

A Legacy of Loot

Yet, in spite of Smith’s profound analysis and Burke’s passionate
rhetoric, imperial interests won out against principle, consigning
India to an empire of scorn and extraction. The drain of wealth was
simply too attractive to renounce — even though one lone MP did
call for Britain to withdraw from India back in the 1780s. Combining
commercial domination with control over Bengal’s tax system, the
Company was able to restructure the richest province of what had once
been the Mughal Empire for its own ends. Textiles were shipped back
to London, paid for by Bengal’s own taxes, and peasants were forced to
grow opium to be sold exclusively at below-cost prices to the Company,
who then engineered its illegal export into China. If force and fraud
were the tools by which the Company turned the terms of trade in its
favour in India, it was opium that eventually had the same effect with
the Qing Empire. For millennia, Europe had exported bullion to Asia
in return for luxury goods, and when the Company was formed in 1600,
Britain accounted for a paltry 2 percent of global output, compared
with India’s 22 percent and China’s percent. By the time Britain
finally departed India’s shores three and a half centuries later,
its national income was more than 50 percent greater than that of
its former colony. And it was the East India Company that acted as
one of the chief agents in engineering this great switch in global
development.

"What is happening today with the rise of India and China is not some
miraculous novelty — as it is usually depicted in the Western press,"
writes historian William Dalrymple in the August 2nd issue of Time
magazine, "so much as a return to the traditional pattern of global
trade in the medieval and ancient world, where gold drained from West
to East in payment for silks and spices and all manner of luxuries
undreamed of in the relatively primitive capitals of Europe."

Centuries after the Company’s demise, its physical presence in India
continues to impress: Its remains stretch from ruins of its fort at
the pepper port of Tellicherrry on the west coast, to the grandeur
of Chennai’s Fort St. George on India’s eastern shore. The mark is
greatest in Kolkata, a "company town" of immense proportions.

But the Company’s powerful legacy also endures in India’s public memory
as an inspiration to the nationalist struggle for independence. For
India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, the Company lay at
the root of the oppression that he fought. "The corruption, venality,
nepotism, violence and greed of money of these early generations of
British rule in India," Nehru thundered in The Discovery of India,
"is something which passes comprehension."

Looking back at the Company’s conquest of India, Nehru noted "it is
significant that one of the Hindustani words which has become part
of the English language is loot."

Traditions of Domination and Resistance

Today, after a decade of economic liberalization in India, this
critical analysis continues to lie close to the surface. For many
Indians, the Company’s story has two profound morals: first, that
multinational companies want not just trade, but power, and second,
that division and betrayal among Indians enables foreign rule. The East
India Company was a profit-making company that generated not only great
wealth, but immense suffering, most notably in the horrific Bengal
famine of 1769-70. Just as corporations today should be judged by the
impacts of their core business rather than their often peripheral
donations to cultural events, so the East India Company has to be
assessed on the basis of its underlying activities rather than the
occasional philanthropy of its executives.

Far from being a dusty relic, the East India Company exemplifies the
constant battle within corporations between the logic of exchange and
the desire for domination. Two centuries on, it demonstrates that
the quest for corporate accountability is a perpetual exercise in
directing the energies of merchants and entrepreneurs so that their
private passions do not undermine the public interest. The lesson
from Smith is the imperative to keep corporate size in check while
globalization is fostering ever-increasing commercial concentration.

And from Burke, we can take the essential importance of placing
corporate conduct within a framework of justice, establishing legal
mechanisms to hold corporations to account.

At its heart, the Company’s business model combined speculation at home
with aggression abroad. It was Karl Marx, writing in the 1850s as the
Company limped towards its end, who pithily captured the drive that
lay behind its remorseless rise to power. It was not any imperial
project that had led it on, he wrote, but rather the Company had
"conquered India to make money out of it."

Just as in the days of the Company, India remains the place where
corporate practice meets strong resistance, such as ongoing protests
to bring justice for the thousands who were poisoned or killed in
the 1984 deadly gas leak at Union Carbide’s Bhopal factory, or the
movement in the 1990s to prevent Enron’s Dabhol natural gas power
project in Maharashtra from going on-line.

Challenges to multinational projects continue across the country today:
In March 2007, after police shot to death 14 people protesting against
investment plans of the Salim Group of Indonesia, the chemical hub in
West Bengal Nandigram was cancelled. Nor is it just foreign companies
that have faced fierce resistance. Protesters have targeted India-based
billionaires including the Tatas who planned to set up a major car
factory in Singur, West Bengal.

And like the Company, corporate impunity remains a constant concern.

Roger Moody, a British campaigner from Mines and Communities, notes
that Vedanta’s subsidiary, Sterlite Gold, stands accused of a raft of
criminal acts in Armenia, including mining more gold than permitted by
the government, deliberately under-valuing its reserves, and failing
to properly dispose of mine wastes. Last November, in Zambia, Vedanta
was indicted for willfully using a defective pipeline to dispose of
highly toxic tailings from the country’s largest copper mine, KCM,
which it purchased two years earlier. It had also been constructing
Zambia’s premier copper smelter without obtaining official permission
from the Zambian government.

Last week, the Majhis took home a small concession from London. A
Vedanta spokesperson said the company’s chairman, Anil Agarwal, would
be "very happy" to visit the controversial area with the villagers.

But, the villagers understood that would not be enough. "We are not
going to allow this [destruction] to happen," Kumuti Majhi told a
news conference in New Delhi. "We have been living in this mountain
range for generations, and we worship Niyamgiri as a living god."

Warm words were equally insufficient for Rafael and the other Armenian
merchants back in the time of the East India Company. When the
Company’s directors arrogantly brushed them aside, they went to court,
suing the Company’s chief executive in the region, Harry Verelst,
for damages. An intense legal battle then unfolded with claim and
counter-claim lasting until 1777, when the courts found Verlest guilty
of "oppression, false imprisonment and singular depredations." The
Armenians won a total of £9,700 in compensation — over £800,000 in
today’s money. Thousands of miles away from the scene of the crime,
the principle of extraterritorial liability for corporate malpractice
had been established in Georgian London.

Will Vedanta and others repeat the excesses of the British East India
Company, or can systems of accountability finally be established
that protect the rights of the weakest — just as Burke hoped for
centuries ago? Much depends on what investors, regulators and society
learn from the lessons of the past.

Corporations, like people, have life spans. The British East India
Company is long dead, but the quest for wealth it embodied endures.

So, too — as evidenced by popular movements and persistent campaigners
like Kumuti Majhi and Phulme Majhi — does resistance.

* Nick Robins is author of The Corporation that Changed the World: How
the East India Company Shaped the Modern Multinational (Pluto, 2006)

–Boundary_(ID_zG4kleR54hSGo4vQn2GQQA)–

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14640

Local dancer from Armenia takes students to study in her homeland

News & Record (Greensboro, NC)
August 08, 2007 Wednesday
Guilford Record North Edition

Local dancer from Armenia takes students to study in her homeland

JENNIFER ATKINS BROWN

Natalya Igitkhanyan Davison , a native of Armenia, took her first
dance class at 7, and by 9 she auditioned and was accepted as a
student at the prestigious Armenian Choreographic Institute , where
she studied until she was 18 . She continued her dance education in
Moscow at the National Institute of Theatrical Art and became a
professional dancer with the Barekamutyn State Dance Ensemble,
Armenia’s premiere national dance troupe . She had the opportunity to
dance all over the world.

After her first child was born, she decided to take a break from her
dance career, but it did not take long before she felt herself being
pulled back into the world she adored.

"I always knew I wanted to dance," Davison said. "If you love it, you
can’t live without it."

She became a dance teacher and while teaching in Russia she met her
husband, Dexter Davison , who is from Greensboro. After moving to
Greensboro with her husband nine years ago, she helped start Artistic
Motion , a dance studio that offers instruction in ballroom dancing,
ballet, pointe, tap, jazz, modern and hip-hop.

Her native home and experiences with the Barekamutyn Dance Ensemble
were never far from her mind, though. After a visit back to Armenia
in 2006 and bumping into a classmate still dancing with the troupe,
she came up with the idea to do a dance exchange program.

Davison, Debbie Isom-Chodyniecki, co-director of Artistic Motion, one
other teacher and 12 dance students, ages 15 and older, from her
studio and other studios across the country, traveled to Armenia June
23 for an intense two weeks of study with the Barekamutyn State Dance
Ensemble. Although the troupe has traveled extensively throughout
Europe and America, this was the first time they worked in
conjunction with an American dance studio to perform and to enhance
their repertoire by learning from and performing with American
dancers. The American students taught the Armenians jazz and modern
dance, and the Armenians taught the Americans ballet and Armenian
national dances.

"It was great to see how much our dancers matured from this trip,"
Davison said. "They saw how hard the dancers work in the professional
world."

Brenda Bowman , a ballet dancer with Artistic Motion who traveled
with the group, said the trip was "a chance of a lifetime."

"It was so exciting to see their dancers rehearse and perform,"
Bowman said. "I think this experience will raise the bar for us as
dancers, and I think those of us who went will work even harder."

The culmination of the exchange was a performance at the Opera House
in the Armenian capitol of Yerevan .

"I think this was really a cultural exchange as well as dance
exchange," Davidson said.

When she left the country in 1995 , Armenia was in the midst of a
war. Now, Davison said, the war is over, there is music in the
streets and construction taking place.

"It was so neat for our students to see how important the arts are in
Armenia," she said. "It’s where they get their food for the soul."

Davison hopes to lead a group back to Armenia next year and bring a
group of Armenian dancers to the United States.

"It’s such a great opportunity for the dancers," Davison said. "It’s
so wonderful to be able to share my heritage."

Contact Jennifer Atkins Brown at 574-5582 or
[email protected]

Women Make Up 72% Of Unemployed In Armenia

WOMEN MAKE UP 72% OF UNEMPLOYED IN ARMENIA

Noyan Tapan
Aug 09 2007

YEREVAN, AUGUST 9, NOYAN TAPAN. The number of economically active
population made 1,182.8 thousand in Armenia in January-June 2007,
with 92.8% or 1,097.4 thousand being engaged in the economy. 7.2% of
85.4 thousand had no job and were registered at the "Employment Center"
agency of the RA Ministry of Labor and Social Issues, receiving status
of unemployed. According to the RA National Statistical Service,
women made up 72% of the unemployed officially registered in the
first half of 2007, which exceeds by 0.6% the respective index of 2006.

ATG Develops Seeds Of 8 New Wheat Varieties

ATG DEVELOPS SEEDS OF 8 NEW WHEAT VARIETIES

Noyan Tapan
Aug 06 2007

YEREVAN, AUGUST 6, NOYAN TAPAN. The Armenian Technology Group (ATG)
Fund has started reproduction of seeds of 8 new wheat varietis in
Shirak region, NT correspondent was informed by Gagik Mkrtchian,
director of the fund’s Yerevan office. According to him, since
1996, ATG has reproduced about 1,200 tons of weed seeds in Armenia
annually. These seeds are sown on 6,000 ha and meet 18-20% of domestic
demand for wheat seeds.

G. Mkrtchian said that new varieties of wheat are imported into
Armenia from Mexico. ATG grows about 40 varieties of wheat in 12
wheat production zones of Armenia. Besides, by means of tests ATG
gets special sorts of wheat resistant to drought, frost and wind,
as well as sorts used for making macaroni and bulgar.

ROBERT FISK : Mistrust Fuels Cycle Of Violence In Lebanon

MISTRUST FUELS CYCLE OF VIOLENCE IN LEBANON
Robert Fisk in Bikfaya, Lebanon

The Independent – United Kingdom
Published: Aug 06, 2007

When, oh when, will the Lebanese Christians stop destroying each other?

General Michel Aoun’s Free Democratic Party (colour them bright
orange) stood yesterday, along with their pro-Syrian allies, against
the Phalangist candidate Amin Gemayel, former president and father
of the assassinated incumbent MP, Pierre, murdered – by Syrians? By
rival Christians? You name it – last year.

For Gemayel, read authority, the power of the democratically elected
parliament, the government of Lebanon and, much more to the point,
the US-supported government of Lebanon. For Aoun – who once claimed
to be "liberating" Lebanon from Syria in a disastrous 1990 war,
but who would now like to be Syria’s president in Lebanon – it
was a heady moment. His candidate, Camille Khoury, may not win,
but he will reformulate the politics of Lebanon where "pro-Syrian"
may become once more a respectable political label.

The issues are deadly serious, in every sense of the word. Pierre
Gemayel, son of the putative successful candidate Amin, was shot to
death in his car last November, and so a vote in his Christian favour
– there are few Muslims in the beautiful Metn hills here – was a vote
against his presumed killers, the Syrian security services. Desperate
to avoid the language of civil war -which all of the candidates
speak in private – Aoun had earlier addressed a rally in the Beirut
suburbs from behind a bulletproof shield, and abused his opponents as
"windmills of lies," adding, spitefully: "I will not call them sons
of snakes, but sons of rumours, and rumours are like a rootless weed.
Once you pluck it out, it dies."

If it seemed sinister, try Gemayel’s warning to opponents "the Metn
will never be a suburb of Damascus", adding Syria’s political allies,
especially Ali Qanso, of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, supported
Aoun. The people of these hills – where his son is in the family crypt
in Bikfaya – knew the ex-general was "dragging them to a battle they
did not want" and the electoral battle was "dancing over the blood
of martyrs".

Yet again, the Christians are being divided – much, no doubt, to
Syria’s delight – and the danger of inter-Christian fighting, which
last week took the form of stonings and beatings in the streets
of Beirut, has been increased. The sectarian system of voting
(courtesy, originally, of the League of Nations’ French Mandate)
meant the Armenian Tashnak party is supporting Aoun, a fact that
has outraged the party’s supporters in the state of Armenia. What,
on earth, has Aoun ever done to acknowledge the 1915 genocide of one
and a half million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks?

It all goes back to a simple equation; if the Lebanese would trust
each other as much as they trust in Washington, Tehran, Tel Aviv,
Damascus, London or Paris, they would be safe, but the sectarian
system of politics ensures the de-confession-alisation of Lebanon
would destroy the country’s identity. Thus it lives, in the constant
penumbra of civil war.

Syrian-Backed Opposition Claims Victory In Lebanon Poll

SYRIAN-BACKED OPPOSITION CLAIMS VICTORY IN LEBANON POLL

Agence France Presse — English
August 6, 2007 Monday 3:54 PM GMT

Lebanon’s Western-backed ruling majority was dealt a blow on Monday
in by-elections that split the country’s Christian camp in two and
boosted the Syrian-backed opposition ahead of a presidential poll.

Official results showed the candidate representing opposition leader
Michel Aoun winning by a slim margin of 418 votes over former president
Amin Gemayel, who was supported by the ruling Western-backed coalition.

Camille Khoury won 39,534 votes as against 39,116 for Gemayel.

Aoun and Gemayel both made separate calls for unity after the results
were announced but bickered over who has the mandate to represent
their community.

"These elections have shown that the solution to the Lebanese crisis
is found in respect for institutions. This is why I am calling for
reconciliation between Christians… so that presidential commitments
can be respected," Gemayel told a news conference.

"These elections were effectively a test. They have shown that General
Aoun’s support is in broad decline in Christian regions because of
the policies he has followed."

Aoun seemed to strike a conciliatory note in a subsequent news
conference of his own, but also claimed support from all Christian
confessions as well as Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

"Gemayel has spoken of a reconciliation under the aegis of the Maronite
(Christian) patriarch. We are in agreement on this and I extend my
hand," he said.

"But I dispute his analysis that I am not representative of
Christians. Maronites are not the only Christians," he added.

Aoun called the Metn region where Sunday’s vote took place a
"microcosm" of Lebanese society: "There are Maronites, Orthodox,
Armenians, Shiites and Sunnis. We won in a diverse constituency,
which means we are popular in all the communities."

The by-elections were to replace two murdered anti-Syrian MPs, the
latest in a spate of politically linked killings that have rocked
the country since the 2005 assassination of former prime minister
Rafiq Hariri.

The outcome of the vote was important as it showed which way
the country’s divided Christian community was leaning ahead of a
presidential election scheduled for next month.

Lebanon’s president is traditionally a Maronite Christian who is
chosen by parliament.

Gemayel was vying to replace his son Pierre, a Christian cabinet
member and lawmaker who was shot dead last November. In Beirut,
the vote was to replace Walid Eido, a Sunni Muslim lawmaker who was
killed in a car bomb in June.

Eido’s seat was easily won by pro-government candidate Mohamad
Amin Itani.

Several Lebanese newspapers on Monday said that although Aoun’s
Free Patriotic Movement emerged the winner in the weekend poll, the
party had nonetheless been weakened politically as it only clinched
a narrow victory.

"A difference of 418 votes: a fake victory," blared a headline in
the pro-government French daily L’Orient Le Jour.

The paper said that had it not been for the support of the Armenian
community in one district, where Gemayel alleged vote-rigging, Aoun’s
party would have been trampled in the polls.

But the opposition newspaper Al-Akhbar said that although Aoun won by
a slim margin, the results put to rest claims by the ruling majority
that he no longer represented the Christian community.

"Even though his victory was not overwhelming, Aoun came out the
winner," it said. "He has answered to those who pretend that he is
no longer the leader of the Christian community."

The movement of Aoun, a declared presidential candidate, garnered most
of the Christian vote in 2005 legislative polls, but his popularity
has waned since he forged a shock alliance last year with the Iran-
and Syria-backed Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

Parliament’s challenge now is to elect a new president to succeed
pro-Syrian incumbent Emile Lahoud by a November 25 deadline.

While the majority controls enough seats to elect a president, it
needs the opposition to take part for the two-thirds quorum required
for parliament to convene.

The strange case of Baroness de Stempel

The strange case of Baroness de Stempel: How the death of an eccentric
architect revealed a web of murder, fraud and intrigue
Twenty years ago, an eccentric architect was bludgeoned to death at his
crumbling mansion. The dramatic trial of his ex-wife revealed a web of
murder, fraud and intrigue, shining a harsh light on Britain’s
aristocracy. But what happened next in the strange case of Baroness de
Stempel?
Investigation by Terry Kirby

The Independent/UK
Published: 04 August 2007

The ancient church of St Edward sits on a hillside, overlooking the
scattered houses of Hopton Castle, an isolated Shropshire hamlet, which
lies just where the lush green meadows of England merge with the brown
hills of Wales. The background sounds are of sheep bleating, water
running and a breeze that rustles through the pines across the valley,
bringing a scent of far-off wilder places to the west.

To get to the churchyard, you park on the grass verge, cross a rickety
bridge over the stream, and go through two aged wooden gates, before
entering the churchyard. There, on the left, near a stone wall, is a
striking black granite headstone. Its border is a series of engraved
images: some books, a few scrolls, a typewriter and an architect’s
compass. At the top, there is another, of a mansion. The inscription
reads:

Simon Dale
Architect and Scholar.
Who with his wife saved Heath House from demolition.
17 June 1919 ` 11/12 September 1987.
REQUIESCAT IN PACE.

The casual visitor might think this headstone poses more questions than
it answers. Who was this architect and scholar? What is Heath House?
Why is the date of death uncertain? And who was, or is, the wife, whose
name is curiously absent?

In 2007, William Wilberforce, the Victorian politician whose name will
forever be associated with the abolition of slavery, has been justly
celebrated, not least in the film Amazing Grace and a new biography by
William Hague, because this year marks the 200th anniversary of the
date Parliament approved his bill to ban the transport of slaves. This
year, there has been one other significant anniversary associated with
the illustrious Wilberforce name: an event much less celebrated,
although it might make a better film than Amazing Grace. It is the
story behind the headstone.

Simon Dale, an architect who was blind and whose scholarship was deeply
eccentric, was married to Susan Wilberforce ` the unnamed "wife" of the
headstone ` the great-great-grand-daughter of William Wilberforce.
Twenty years ago next month, one sunny Sunday afternoon in September,
he was found battered to death in the kitchen of Heath House, the
crumbling mansion that they, as newlyweds, had saved from demolition
and turned into their family home, but which, after their divorce,
became the subject of an acrimonious dispute. And Susan Wilberforce was
charged with the murder of her ex-husband, although she was cleared at
trial. Hence the absence of her name. Two decades on, the murderer is
still at large, the police file still open.

That is not all. While investigating the murder, detectives stumbled
across another crime: Susan, together with her second husband, Baron
Michael de Stempel, and two of her five children, had defrauded
Margaret, Lady Illingworth, her elderly and senile aunt, who had once
organised Susan’s debutante party, of an estimated £1m. Susan pleaded
guilty to fraud; Michael and two of her children, Marcus and Sophia,
both in their mid-twenties, were found guilty. The judge called Susan a
"malign and appalling influence" on her offspring.

While entertaining to outsiders, the affair was deeply embarrassing to
the Wilberforce family, a dynasty created by the abolitionist’s four
sons that has given centuries of unstinting service to the nation’s
institutions, reinforcing their reputation for integrity, without ever
accumulating the serious wealth of other such families. Susan’s
great-uncle was Lord Wilberforce, a Law Lord, who died in 2003, while
her brother John, who died in 2001, was the British High Commissioner
in Cyprus. Both gave evidence for the Crown at the fraud trial.

Unanswered questions remain. Why did the Wilberforce clan not report
the stripping of Lady Illingworth’s assets? What happened to the
£12m-worth of gold bars possibly in Lady Illingworth’s possession? Who
did kill Simon Dale? Why were crucial witnesses not called? For
answers, one must look further than the graveyard at St Edward.

Susan Wilberforce, then 23, met and married Simon Dale in London in
1957. Fifteen years her senior, he was a cultivated man from a
middle-class Oxford family who worked on restoring country homes; she
was a young woman about town. Her upbringing had been one of large
chilly houses, strict discipline, finishing school in Paris and rather
distant relatives. Her father, Lt Col William Wilberforce,
great-grandson of the abolitionist, died in the Second World War; her
mother remarried and was a marginal presence in her life ` hence the
involvement of her father’s sister, Lady Illingworth.

Susan provided Dale with, in the words of his friend the late
Christopher Hurst, a publisher, "entry to the class he had courted
professionally" , and he brought a solid, male presence to what had
been a rather rootless life. Pursuing their ambition to restore a
country house, they purchased Heath House in 1959, paying £2,000 of her
money for a semi-derelict shell its owners had been about to demolish.
Built in 1620 for a local squire, the house sits squarely amid the
trees, facing the hills to the south-west, in what is still a rural,
sparsely populated area, a few miles west of Ludlow. While it is a
peaceful, beautiful region, almost entirely by-passed by tourism and
motorways, even its strongest admirers admit Heath House was isolated
and gloomy. "My heart sank at what they were contemplating," said
Hurst.

The 1960s passed them by as the couple remained cocooned in Heath
House, spending all their money on schooling their five children and
renovating the house.

Contact with neighbours was minimal, partly because of their
preoccupations, partly because few locals had much in common with them.
But it was also because Susan, like many of the Wilberforces, was shy
and reticent, characteristics reinforced by her upbringing. What others
might see as aloofness and disdain is the Wilberforce way.

There were few distractions, apart from family visitors. Curiously, in
view of later events, in November 1968, a local GP, Dr Alan Beach, was
lured to the house by the husband of a patient, unhappy about the late
diagnosis of cancer in his wife; the doctor was shot dead in his car at
the top of the drive. The incident had nothing to do with the Dales,
but seemed of a piece with the aura of the place.

By the end of the 1960s, the marriage had broken down. Dale’s eyesight
was failing, his outside work had dried up and the idea of his wife
getting a job was unfeasible. There were arguments and she later
claimed he suffered ……… violent moods, frustrated by his
condition. They lived in different parts of the house, with the
children mostly away at a succession of schools. They divorced in 1972
and she left a year later. As a condition of the settlement, Heath
House was to be sold and the profits divided between them.

It never was. For the next 15 years, a combination of unstable house
prices, a scarcity of buyers and Dale’s refusal to move frustrated any
sale. Susan, relying on family handouts, moved around before settling
at Forresters Hall, a grandly named but small roadside cottage in f
Docklow, near Leominster; the younger children were mostly with her,
bonding into an insular unit, but they also visited their father. The
correspondence between the solicitors mounted up, but both parties were
too impoverished to pursue the matter in court.

Meanwhile, Dale lived mainly in the kitchen, sleeping upstairs in a
four-poster bed. The rest of the house was half-empty, full of dusty
furniture and discarded children’s toys; one room contained just two
rocking horses. "Like the Marie Celeste," said Hurst. Dale’s
determination to stay was founded mainly on a belief, based on his
excavations and researches, that Heath House was an important historic
site: he claimed variously it was the location of Camelot, the centre
of a Pagan cult and the lost city of the ancient Armenians. "What I
appear to have found are streets, 40 feet wide and 200 yards long…
shops, houses, that sort of thing," he told the Manchester Evening News
in the late 1970s. He was writing two books about the remains and
wanted the site preserved, with himself as curator.

The scepticism of professional archaeologists only reinforced his
belief that the establishment was conspiring against him. His friends
and children took it with a pinch of salt: "Simon was fine if you kept
him off the old Armenians," remembers Veronica Garmen, one of a group
of locals who took pity on him in the mid-1980s. "He had no money, of
course, and I used to have to darn his only sweater.

"And…" she says, still conscious of the rumours, "Simon was not
violent. Never. He was a big gentle man. Neither was he a recluse ` he
was just cut off in that big old house and a bit lonely. We used to go
around and cheer him up."

All his friends and those who used to read for him and help in his
researches have only fond memories. "He was a reasonable chap, but
eccentric, a five-star eccentric," said Bill Harper, a neighbour. He
saw him frequently: a tall, balding man, who would stride, despite near
total blindness, across the fields to Leintwardine, the nearest
village, where he would buy his regulation small white loaf and cheese
from the shop. He would make each loaf last precisely two and a half
days.

While Dale hung on, the extraordinary figure of Baron Michael Victor
Jossif de Stempel had re-entered the life of his ex-wife. From a
wealthy Russian émigré family, holders of an ancient Latvian title, De
Stempel, who describes himself as an economist, may in fact never have
done a proper day’s work in his life. This is a man whose own barrister
said a jury might consider him to be a "monumental snob", a "congenital
liar" and "a man without courage".

Susan first met him in the rooms of her brother John, at Oxford,
shortly before he, Michael, was sent down. He became a man about town,
spending his nights at the Ritz ` they pleased him by addressing him as
" Monsieur le Baron" ` and attending parties such as Susan’s coming-out
ball. He was obsessed with ancient families: the intense, black-eyed
Susan Wilberforce, proud that she could date her ancestry back to the
12th century, fascinated him. They began a relationship shortly
afterwards, although she rejected his marriage proposals because of his
unreliability. The affair continued, on and off, for several years;
Dale came along when Michael was away in South America. Michael married
the first of his three wives shortly afterwards.

Susan, though, was not forgotten. "It was a mutual fascination, but
Michael undeniably weakened her," as one of her children later said.
They never lost touch and Michael visited Heath House with both of his
first two wives. He rather liked it and at one point began having his
post directed there.

In 1982, with both divorced, Michael began to visit Susan at Docklow.
The relationship resumed ` sometimes they would spend the day in bed,
studying Debretts and the Almanach de Gotha ` and he helped Susan out
financially, not least in the defrauding of Lady Illingworth.

She, the widow of Lord Illingworth of Denton, a former Postmaster
General from a prosperous Yorkshire wool family, had lived the life of
a Mayfair socialite at her home in London’s Grosvenor Square. Now in
her early eighties, living in a mansion flat and suffering from senile
dementia, Lady Illingworth was brought "for a holiday" to Docklow in
February 1984 by Susan’s daughter Sophia, who had been staying with her
while working as a temporary secretary. Police believe the fraud was
not planned in advance, but grew out of Susan’s belief that after the
poverty of the past decade, she was entitled to family money. Her
brother John, resident in the Wilberforce family home in Markington, in
Yorkshire, was the main beneficiary of their mother’s will, while Susan
may have known she was excluded from Lady Illingworth’s, again in
John’s favour. And, anyway, were not the Illingworths just a bit
nouveau?

Within a couple of weeks of the arrival of Aunt Puss, as they called
her, her bank accounts had been plundered using a series of forged
signatures, her shares were sold and, as insurance, a new will forged,
leaving the bulk of her possessions to Susan. Also using forged
authorities, all her furniture, antiques, jewellery, paintings and
other valuables were taken from her London flat, out of storage and
from bank vaults and sold at auctions. They got away with around £1m,
spent mostly on cars, holidays and a flat in Spain. After nine months,
Lady Illingworth was dumped in a Hereford nursing home, because, Susan
told social workers, they could not cope with her senility.

In late 1984, Susan and Michael finally married in St Helier, Jersey, a
trip funded by the sale of £13,000-worth of Aunt Puss’s jewellery. It
lasted barely a year. They found it impossible to live together.
Michael refused to commit himself and became involved with another
woman. He would later claim he had only been "technically married" to
Susan, who was still, he said, "fiscally married" to Simon. Now it was
Susan’s turn to beg, writing imploring, melodramatic letters: "My heart
aches at the thought of being apart from you." She even claimed to be
dying of cancer.

When Aunt Puss herself died at the end of 1986, she was cremated in
virtual secrecy at Hereford, with none of the other Wilberforces, who
had only been dimly aware of her whereabouts, told until later; the
cremation directly contravened the request in her earlier will that she
be buried alongside her husband, at the Illingworth family tomb in
Bradford. The obituaries suggested she had spent her last days in a
suite in Claridges. Her real fate remained unknown to the wider world
until Simon Dale was murdered.

On 13 September 1987, Simon Dale’s body was found by Giselle Wall, who
had helped with his research, lying in a pool of blood in the kitchen,
toad-in-the-hole was still cooking in the oven. He had been battered
around the head with a hard, narrow instrument.

Police suspicion immediately fell on Susan after they learnt that she,
together with Marcus and Sophia, had been spending much time there
improving the house’s exterior and grounds in the expectation that
renewed legal efforts to evict Simon would bear fruit. She admitted
breaking in sometimes to take furniture she considered hers. All this
had led to angry verbal confrontations with Simon ` who felt himself
under siege ` and visitors to the house. Susan, Sophia and Marcus were
charged with his murder, although proceedings against the children were
halted after a few weeks. All three, plus Michael, were charged with
the fraud, discovered during routine financial checks.

Susan treated the police with contempt: "You would have been proud of
me," she wrote to Michael, "if you had heard the lectures I gave all
those little men about the ancient nobility of your family and mine."
The little men, in turn,

were astounded at the lack of emotional response when they broke the
news of Dale’s death to those at Docklow. Susan refused to answer
questions, or gave dismissive denials.

It was a short, dramatic murder trial at Worcester. The Crown had no
direct evidence other than accounts from visitors to Heath House who
had seen her lurking in the grounds on the previous Friday evening. A
recently cleaned crowbar found in a cottage used by the trio was put
forward as the murder weapon, although there were no traces of blood.
The highlight of the trial was her performance during a two-day-long
interrogation by Anthony Palmer QC, one of the country’s best
inquisitors, who was treated like a dim retainer for even suggesting
her mounting anger with Dale had turned into violence. "I wish you
would get into your head, Mr Palmer," she announced loftily, "that I
was not angry with Simon." Another accusation was dismissed with:
"Bollocks, Mr Palmer!" Ian Bullock, the detective superintendent in
charge of the murder inquiry, remembers her disarming composure: "At
the end of a long day in the witness box, it was she who looked down at
me and said, ‘You do look tired, Mr Bullock’ ." Most observers felt she
had won on points ` the jury clearly agreed.

But Susan remained in custody for the fraud, changing her plea to
guilty shortly before the trial started. At those proceedings, in
Birmingham in early 1990, the jury rejected Marcus and Sophia’s claim
that they had simply been unwitting tools in the defrauding of Aunt
Puss. The jury also rejected Michael’s protestations of being "merely a
porter"; his assistance in the intricacies of banking and wills had
been fundamental.

Afterwards, he said: "It was about what I would have expected from a
working-class jury." Susan got seven years, Michael four, Marcus 18
months and Sophia 30 months; police believed the judge correctly
apportioned sentences to their respective involvement in the plot.
Throughout, no one mentioned the gold bars.

The gold bars were just one of several mysteries around the case which
have never been resolved. Police were told by one of the men who moved
Lady Illingworth’s property into storage when she left Grosvenor Square
in the late 1960s that he had seen a number of gold bars in the
basement, apparently sent for safekeeping by a French family who
perished in the Second World War. They were shifted to the local
NatWest bank vault, the one plundered years later during the fraud. But
no gold bars were itemised on the bank’s own inventory. There was a
reference to "Boxes (very heavy)" , but the police could find no
evidence they existed. But someone clearly believed they were real. A
month into their prison sentences, all four received writs from
solicitors acting on behalf of Lady Illingworth’s estate demanding the
return of "30 gold bars, each 18 inches long, total value £12m". All
thought it laughable; the police privately agreed: " If they had got
that much, they would not have stayed in that little rented cottage in
Docklow," said one source. f Even so, the writs prompted a police dig
in the grounds of Heath House. Nothing was ever found by the trustees
in bankruptcy.

I got to know Susan and three of her children when researching a book
on the case, published in 1991. Susan, whom I interviewed in prison and
corresponded with, was, as billed, a disquieting combination of
aristocratic aloofness and impeccable manners, coupled with an ability
to brush aside uncomfortable questions as if the whole thing was simply
too distasteful. She told me she refused the police offer of a plea to
manslaughter on the murder charge. "I would rather have gone to prison
than admit to something I did not do." Apart from a "she was very
happy", questions about Aunt Puss were sidestepped. But one thing she
was clear about: her pedigree. "I know who I am. The one thing money
can’t buy is breeding, don’t you agree?" she wrote. There was no irony.

After her release she was penniless, spending her time with lawyers and
accountants attempting to sort out the tangled mess of wills, bank
accounts and competing writs she caused. One accountant recalled the
same air of denial: "She sat, handbag on her lap, very polite, a fixed
expression, as if we were having tea and scones. When I pointed out
that she had taken all her aunt’s money, she simply gave me one of
those ‘if looks could kill looks…’. " Several publishers were offered
her version of the affair but none was prepared to pay.

Predictably, the relationship with Michael resumed, although they never
lived together. She lived in Wales and London, but then when the
relationship foundered again a few years ago, moved to Hastings, where
she still is. Now in her early seventies, she has recently suffered
heart problems. Last year, she sent a card to "Darling Michael" on his
75th birthday with the message: "Hurry up, it will soon be too late" .

The Baron mostly stays with his second wife, Francesca Tesi, in a small
terraced house in Acton, west London. Their son, Alexander, died in
2003. The three children from his first marriage have enjoyed success:
one daughter, Sophie, an artist and a former model for Lucien Freud, is
married to the actor Ian Holm; Tatiana, his other daughter, is also a
painter; his son, Andrew, is a doctor.

Marcus and Sophia Wilberforce, when I met them, seemed much younger
than the average late-twentysomething, despite their resolutely
old-fashioned dress sense and introverted manners. Sophia received
psychiatric treatment during the trial and never read a word of the
official papers. During long sessions with their lawyers she would
offer to make tea. When she confronted her mother about the enormity of
what had occurred, Susan simply said: " Don’t be a bore."

"We were used," Marcus told me, eventually, very quietly. One dark
winter’s night he showed me around Heath House’s dusty rooms; we
chatted around the table where his father ate and worked, in the
kitchen where he lived and died. Asleep on the table was Oats, the cat
they bought for Aunt Puss.

Both are now in their forties. Sophia still works as a temporary
secretary in London; Marcus married and lives in Scotland, where he is
a building surveyor. Their current relationship with their mother,
while unclear, seems unlikely to be close.

All four have repaid their debt to society. None has acted as if they
have access to £12m. Mike Cowley, the officer who headed the fraud part
of the inquiry and is now a CPS solicitor, said: "Anything which now
remains is a matter for their consciences."

Of the other children, Sebastian, the second oldest, the one closest to
his father, who shares the same eye condition, is a solicitor and
expert on charity law. He lives in New Zealand, with his wife and
family. I also got to know Sebastian during my researches: a decent,
diffident man, shattered by the events and concerned about the
reputation of his father, whose headstone he commissioned. I telephoned
to ask whether the children thought West Mercia police should use the
20th anniversary of the murder to launch a fresh appeal for witnesses?
"I’m sorry," he said. "I’ve nothing to say. And that goes for all of
us."

Which was the official Wilberforce line all along. The family closed
ranks, resisting questions as to why there was apparently only minimal
interest in what Aunt Puss was doing for the period of almost three
years between her move to Docklow and her death; only Yvette, wife of
Lord Wilberforce, told the trial she "regretted" never trying to find
why her letters to Aunt Puss at Docklow went unanswered. Police
believed they would never have discovered the fraud, if it had not been
for the murder.

If Susan didn’t kill Simon, who did? Inevitably, there were rumours of
hit men and disputes with local people, not called to give evidence. "I
never believed the hit-man theory, but then one policeman said if you
went into a certain pub in Leominster, there were people who might do
such a thing," said Veronica Garman. Then there was a mysterious
hitch-hiker, seen on the road outside over the weekend of his death,
but never traced. Crucially, as the headstone indicated, police never
established the time of death: the intense heat from the cooker
distorted the rigor mortis process. Most evidence pointed towards Simon
being killed on the Friday night ` the line taken by the Crown at the
trial. But according to Bill Harper, as dependable a witness as could
be, Dale was alive on the Saturday. "I am absolutely certain I saw him
striding across the fields on Saturday lunchtime, 80 yards away,
carrying shopping home from Leintwardine." He told me: "I wasn’t
treated very pleasantly by the police, because it did not suit their
case that he died on Friday. But it was him, I’d stake my last penny on
it." Neither Harper, nor the two people with him, was called to give
evidence. These issues may or may not be significant, but suggest the
evidence was nowhere near as straightforward as it seemed. Despite
scientific advances which have solved many "cold cases", West Mercia
Police has no plans to revisit the Dale file "in the near future". Or
in the words of another officer from the inquiry: "The case against
Susan was put to a jury and they didn’t agree."

The deepest irony is that Susan could never return to Heath House, the
place that consumed her money and energies, helped destroy her
marriage, break up her family and give two of her children criminal
records. It was sold at auction, to pay her creditors, for £272,000 in
1993. In 2000, it was bought by Rupert Lywood, a City figure, for
£1.5m. Today, it must be worth several million pounds. To get there,
you still take a sharp left off the main road, past the gate where Dr
Beach died, and plunge down a driveway through a copse. But now the
grounds, once wild and unkempt, have been landscaped.

Of the 30 gold bars, there is still no sign. The house has been
extensively renovated, although it is currently empty, and all traces
of the kitchen where Simon Dale lived, worked and died, are long gone,
along with the dusty upstairs rooms, the rocking horses, the broken
bits of furniture. The brickwork and the exterior have been cleaned,
although the original massive oak door remains, as does the gap in the
hedge by the kitchen door, the one Giselle Wall could not open because
Dale’s bloodied body lay on the other side. There is a swimming pool,
and several outbuildings have been converted into rented cottages.

"Gosh!" exclaims a young woman from one of the cottages, who says her
name is Heather, when I tell her it is the scene of not one, but two
murders, the latter still unsolved. She is genuinely surprised. "We’ve
been here a couple of months and no one told us. And my partner’s a
police officer over the border in Radnor ` he will be fascinated." We
joke about how he might solve it, one day. She says she came up from
Devon to be with him. "I love it here," she says, sweeping her arms
wide to show me across the lush green lawn, the pleasant shrubberies
and tall, mature trees. "It is such a peaceful place. We’re very happy
here." Good luck to them, one feels.

It is a warm, if showery, summer’s day. But as we talk, that sudden
cool breeze passes through the trees again, as if there was something
unsettling over the horizon.

Champion’s League: Shakhtar In Strong Position

SHAKHTAR IN STRONG POSITION
by Khachik Chakhoyan from Yerevan

UEFA, Switzerland
July 31 2007

Goals either side of half-time from Oleksandr Gladkiy and Brandão
enabled FC Shakhtar Donetsk to take a major step towards the UEFA
Champions League third qualifying round.

Solo run. A constant thorn in FC Pyunik’s side, new signing Gladkiy was
worthy of his opening goal in Armenia and could have even broken the
deadlock before his 45th-minute strike. The 19-year-old forward eluded
his markers by embarking on a mesmerising solo run before racing into
the penalty area to force a reaction save out of goalkeeper Gevorg
Kasparov. Although the rebound fell kindly for Jadson Rodriguez,
the midfielder was unable to convert the chance.

Opening goal Pyunik lost the excellent Kasparov when he was injured
in an aerial challenge with Brandão three minutes before half-time
and within minutes his replacement Ignacio Javier Bordad Lopez was
picking the ball out of the net after Gladkiy pounced on a defensive
error to score from close range. It was to prove a debut to forget
for the Uruguayan, who was beaten again soon after the interval.

Follow-up Perhaps sensing the nervousness of the substitute, Jadson
caught Bordad Lopez off guard with a powerful shot from long distance
which the goalkeeper could only parry into the path of Brandão, who
made no mistake. Shakhtar, bidding to reach the group stage for the
second year running and the third time in four years, welcome the
Armenian champions to Ukraine next Wednesday.

–Boundary_(ID_vjdkK8C6eDV++LBaURCncQ) —