UK graffiti artist Banksy has created a controversial title sequence for long-running US animation The Simpsons.
The latest intro, which was shown in the US on Sunday, opens with the street artist’s tag scrawled across the town of Springfield.
It closes with a minute-long sequence showing dozens of sweatshop workers in a warehouse painting cartoon cells and making Simpsons merchandise.
The episode, called MoneyBart, will be shown in the UK on 21 October.
The extended sequence was apparently inspired by reports the show outsources the bulk of their animation to a company in South Korea.
According to the street artist, his storyboard led to delays, disputes over broadcast standards and a threatened walk out by the animation department.
“This is what you get when you outsource,” joked The Simpsons executive producer Al Jean.
Other famous Britons to have contributed to the long-running US series include Tony Blair, Simon Cowell and Ricky Gervais.
Gervais also wrote Homer Simpson, This Is Your Wife in 2006, and is to make another appearance on the show next year.
This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Sir Paul Stephenson wants a ‘radical shake-up’
Britain’s most senior police officer has asked the home secretary to help cut the amount of legal action taken against his force.
Met Police chief Sir Paul Stephenson suggested making it harder for members of the public to bring civil cases against police, the Guardian reported.
He also said staff bringing employment tribunal cases should be charged a fee.
The Home Office said it was usual for Sir Paul to write to the home secretary and his opinions would be considered.
The Guardian said a confidential letter was written in June and sent to Home Secretary Theresa May, with appendices.
The newspaper reported that the appendices were released, but not the letter.
Sir Paul called for a “radical shake-up” of the system, to avoid a drain on police resources.
“Currently for every pound paid out in compensation, up to £10 or sometimes more has to be paid out in legal costs to the claimants’ lawyers,” he said.
“One of the key aspects is that the average settlements are well under £10,000 and most under £5,000, in other words these are not major areas of police misconduct with long-lasting consequences, but often technical breaches.”
On employment tribunals, he wrote: “As you will be aware, currently there are no cost disincentives for claimants lodging speculative employment tribunal claims which are withdrawn after considerable public resources have been expended in order to respond to such claims.”
He suggested a fee should be introduced for lodging employment claims.
The Police Federation of England and Wales questioned the notion of “speculative claims” at employment tribunals, with chief Paul McKeever saying: “Going to an employment tribunal is the last resort people take after being frustrated by the system.”
Sir Paul also suggested the introduction of a fee for requests for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The act gives the public a right of access to all types of recorded information held by public authorities.
But legal campaigners have criticised any attempt to curtail people’s rights.
James Welch, legal director of the civil rights group Liberty, told the Guardian: “The ability to challenge police misconduct in court is a vital constitutional safeguard against abuse of power.”
This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Schools, the NHS and the police were the areas young people most want to protect
Young voters think benefits should be cut to help plug the UK’s deficit, a poll for BBC Radio 1 Newsbeat suggests.
The ComRes survey of 1,004 18 to 24-year-olds found 76% thought jobless payments should be cut and 68% said housing benefit had to be reduced.
Some 62% said there was a genuine need to reduce spending, although 78% wanted cuts to be made slowly to give the economy more time to recover.
Ministers will announce what will be targeted on 20 October.
Tough choices
Asked what areas should be protected, 87% of the young adults – who were surveyed between 28 September and 3 October – said the NHS, 82% schools and 81% the police and fire services.
The young voters favoured spending cuts over tax rises by a large margin.
More than three quarters of those polled described the VAT rise to 20% as a bad way to help the government balance the books.
Increasing capital gains tax for higher rate taxpayers was supported by 49% of those polled, with 48% opposed to the measure.
Calls for the £87bn benefits bill to be reduced were shared across UK regions although slightly older voters tended to favour deeper cuts.
Seven in 10 of those surveyed said that imposing a weekly limit of £400 on housing benefits was a good way to reduce the deficit and 90% supported the introduction of medical checks for anyone claiming disability living allowance.
The young voters were less enthusiastic about policies to reduce other aspects of government spending.
Moves to increase university fees or introduce a graduate tax were only supported by 33%, with 64% against. Some 56% of young people supported raising the retirement age to 66, with 42% opposing the policy.
Policies to scrap government quangos and freeze the pay of public sector workers earning more than £21,000 a year were also not widely supported.
The poll also asked respondents to identify spending areas they wanted to see cut or protected in the upcoming comprehensive spending review.
Front line public services such as the NHS, schools the police and fire service emerged as the most popular to survive unscathed followed by state pensions and defence.
Other welfare payments, new house building, overseas aid and transport were the sectors earmarked by young people for the deepest cuts.
Social charity the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said it was not surprising that young people picked out benefits as an area for savings and wanted to protect “tangible” areas such as the police, NHS and schools.
“It feels like an easier thing to say let’s cut them”
Helen Barnard Joseph Rowntree Foundation
“They are less likely to have been unemployed, to have had health problems, to have had those kind of situations which might mean that they would need benefits,” said its poverty programme manager Helen Barnard.
“So it feels like an easier thing to say ‘let’s cut them’ – whereas once they have been though a few more of those situations it might be more obvious why we need that safety net.”
The government must be aware that decisions it took now could still be having an impact on young people in 50 years time, she added.
“The other thing the government really has an obligation to do is to think about not just how do we push people into work but what kind of work is there going to be and to really focus on those labour market issues and on getting young people into good quality work that they can progress from.”
This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Azaria’s father has been pressing for a new inquest, citing new evidence of dingo attacks on humans
Thirty years after the disappearance of baby Azaria Chamberlain, whose parents always claimed she was taken by a dingo, Australia is preparing a new inquest to try to resolve the question.
Azaria’s mother, Lindy, was found guilty of murder in 1982.
But she was later exonerated after a piece of the baby’s clothing was found in an area full of dingo lairs.
Sources in the Northern Territory have told The Age newspaper that a new inquest would likely open next year.
It will examine the question of whether the baby was taken by a dingo.
Ten-week-old Azaria Chamberlain disappeared from a campsite in the Australian outback in 1980, and virtually ever since, the country has been engrossed by the question of whether the baby was taken by a dingo.
That was how her parents always explained Azaria’s disappearance, but two years later Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton was found guilty of her baby’s murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Later she was exonerated on all charges, after the chance discovery of a fragment of Azaria’s clothing in an area dotted with dingo’s lairs.
But even after three coronial inquests, two appeals and a Royal Commission, the certificate currently lists the cause of death as unknown.
Azaria’s father, Michael Chamberlain, has been pressing for a new inquest, citing new evidence of dingo attacks on humans and the killing of a nine-year-old child by two dingoes in 2001.
The legal record already states that the Chamberlains are innocent.
But they want it to go further and to say, definitively, that a dingo took their baby.
This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Students and parents are waiting anxiously for the outcome of Lord Browne’s review on university funding in England, which is expected to recommend removing the cap on tuition fees, which currently stands at £3,290 a year. Some say such a move would put them off university altogether, others say they would be prepared to stump up the extra cash for a degree.
Mike Wilkinson: Parent fears he won’t be able to support his daughter
Mike says he is caught in the classic middle-income bracket
Mike, a technical services manager from Lancaster, already struggles to help his first daughter, Laura, pay the fees for her criminology and psychology degree at Keele University.
Now he fears a rise in tuition fees will mean his second daughter, Holly, won’t be able to go to university.
“I think I’d be saying to my daughter ‘I’m not sure as a life choice you can afford this.’ If fees were higher, we’d have to say to her ‘You’re on your own’ and I think she wouldn’t go for it,” says Mike.
While he has a good job, Mike says he is the sole breadwinner in the family and he is not flush with cash. He fears a rise in fees will see university become the preserve of the elite well-off.
“I believe in paying my way and my children are almost penalised because of it and it just doesn’t seem fair. It’s because we’re in the middle,” he says.
Mike would support some form of graduate tax, but “perhaps not for life”.
But he also feels there needs to be a closer look at what universities are doing. “We as taxpayers pump a lot of money into universities and get no return and students get no return. Sometimes it feels like they are asking students and taxpayers to fund a totally academic existence where I can contemplate my naval.”
Mike also says there should be greater scrutiny of universities’ buildings and estate development.
Ruben Ferreira: Fine Arts student would not be put off by higher fees
Ruben Ferreira works part-time to fund his studies, but says a degree is worth the hard work
Ruben, 21, is in his second year at Chelsea College of Art and Design. The first in his family to go to university, he is studying for a BA in Fine Art. He is not receiving help from his family, but gets a small bursary from the university and works 16 hours a week in a coffee shop to help fund his studies. Nevertheless, he expects to finish his course with £26,000 of debt.
But Ruben says he would still go to university, even if fees went up. “I have always had the ambition of being a teacher and in order to do that I need to do a PGCE and to do that I need a degree,” he says.
But that’s not to say he thinks a rise in fees is fair. “You’re trying to achieve something to give back. There ought to be an alternative – how much more should students be in debt by?”
But on balance, Ruben says he prefers the idea of higher upfront fees to a graduate tax. “You know the structure,” he says.
Tom Welsh: Prospective student who would be put off by higher fees
Tom says debt is being portrayed as being acceptable
Tom Welsh, 19, sat his A-levels this summer and plans to take up a place at Leicester University next year to study politics. He won’t qualify for a bursary and doesn’t expect to get help from his family.
He will fund his studies with loans and expects to graduate with debts of up to £20,000. “It’s quite a lot in itself – if it gets to £40,000 or £50,000 then it’s getting a bit ludicrous.”
Tom says if fees were increased to around £10,000 a year, he would not go to university.
“You’d come out of university with a debt that’s like a mortgage before you’ve even got a proper job,” he says. “It used to be that if you had a degree, you were guaranteed a job, but now there’s lots of graduates coming out and people are struggling to get jobs.”
Tom does not think charging students more is the way to fund higher education. He is concerned that the current structure – and any rise in fees – gives students the message that being in debt is acceptable.
“Being in debt in this country is seen as okay and it shouldn’t be like that.”
Tom finds it hard to accept that higher fees for students are being imposed by a generation that did not have to pay for a university education.
Paul Scotson: Parent fears his children will end up with huge debts
Paul, a professional from Wimborne in Dorset, worries that his two children will end up with thousands of pounds’ worth of debt. His daughter, 19, is just starting a degree in Veterinary Medicine at Bristol University and his son, 15, wants to study medicine. Paul is a higher-rate tax payer, so will not qualify for any financial assistance. His wife has stayed at home to look after the children.
“I am a professional, but by no means a wealthy person,” says Paul. “I drive a 12-year-old car and don’t take expensive holidays. I can’t afford much help so my children could finish up with £50,000 of debt just to cover the fees, let alone living costs. This money will be taken out of the general economy in order to repay the debt.”
Paul has a novel idea for raising more cash for the higher education sector. “I suggest that those who are voting for this [higher tuition fees] should be asked to retrospectively pay for their university degrees before they’re allowed to vote in favour,” he says.
More seriously, Paul suggests wiping out all current student debt and bringing in a graduate tax that applies to everyone in the country who has a degree. “It would be fairer and a lot lower too,” he says.
Sally: Medical student would be put off by higher fees
Sally (not her real name) is studying medicine at Kings College London. She says higher fees would have put her off university altogether. “I don’t think I’d have gone to university if the fees had been £10,000. I don’t think you can justify that over five years.”
Sally is funding her degree with a student loan and bursaries she has received from Kings College. She also works 20 hours a week in a nightclub at weekends. She did not want to disclose her real identity because she did not want her parents or tutors to know just how much she was working.
She says working and studying at the same time has been tough. “Last year I really struggled and it would be Wednesday before I’d caught up on sleep. Then I would have a couple of good days study before I was back working again.”
Sally acknowledges there is no easy solution to funding higher education. While she is against higher fees, she believes a graduate tax would only lead to more graduates leaving the country.
Michael Whitmore: History student would not be put off by higher fees
Michael is funding his degree with a part-time job and help from his parents
Michael, 20, is a third-year History student at the University of East Anglia. He says higher fees would not put him off going to university because he feels a degree is a necessity.
“To get anywhere in life, you need a good degree. It’s a social stigma – you have to go to university or everyone looks down their nose at you.”
Michael says university is also important because it is a “journey”, giving students the chance to develop other skills, sporting or otherwise.
Michael is funding his degree with a part-time job – 16 hours a week – in a school kitchen. His parents are also helping him, but with the proviso he gets a 2:1 – if he doesn’t, he will have to pay them the tuition fees back.
Michael’s solution to the problem of funding university education is to “go for quality over quantity”. He believes the expansion of higher education has led to the devaluation of degrees.
Michael suggests just the top 100 universities should be allowed to offer degrees and the rest should become specialist colleges in their areas of expertise. This would stop “large amounts of students running into large amounts of debt with a degree that will barely help them in the job market”, says Michael.
This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
