Jack Yan on Vox

In depth: Nom D, Fly Guys and Donna Loveday

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:35:14 +1200

[Cross-posted] A very established New Zealand designer, Margarita Robertson of Nom D, and a newer label, Fly Guys, are proﬁled on the Lucire site this week. Sam Mitchell’s Q&A with Margi is probably the most in-depth that has ever been published. And we’re running another ex-print piece: my interview with Design Museum senior curator Donna Loveday, who curated When Philip Met Isabella, the exhibition about milliner Philip Treacy and his designs for the late Tatler editor Isabella Blow. That was one of those interviews that went very smoothly, since Donna and I share tastes in modernism and music. Beyond Treacy and Blow, she has rubbed shoulders with designers such as Pablo Ferro and the daughter of Robert Brownjohn, Eliza—and, on a more trivial note, she banks at the same place as Ashes to Ashes’ Philip Glenister—TV’s Gene Hunt. I hope you enjoy this trio of articles.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Ooh, You Are Awful: Mandy on ﬁlm

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:30:37 +1200

Ooh! You are awful! Dick Emery as Mandy!

I wasn’t a huge fan of Dick Emery but I have £9 left over from an Amazon UK coupon and have been considering buying his 1972 film, Ooh, You Are Awful (a.k.a. Get Charlie Tully). It is a trivial, film-buff interest: the movie formed the basis of the Hong Kong movie series, 最佳拍檔 (Aces Go Places), and even some of the gags are repeated. The above one, where Dick is in his Mandy character, isn’t in the Chinese film, though others are (almost line for line, in some cases)—and the overall storyline (the location of loot is tattooed on a series of female posteriors) comes straight from here.
Unless I can find some Alarm für Cobra 11 DVDs through the UK service (the coupon can’t be used at other Amazons), the credit may go on Emery—especially as it expires on June 11. Suggestions on how to waste £9 are welcome (remember, shipping will be £3 to New Zealand).

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Medinge Foundation Ltd. incorporated

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Mon, 19 May 2008 23:08:17 +1200

Medinge certificate

Thanks to the hard work of my fellow director Patrick Harris, the Medinge Foundation Ltd. has been incorporated in England and Wales. Through this we hope to continue the work of the Medinge Group and, in particular, its commercial arm in brand consulting. More official news from CEO Stanley Moss in time.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Tony Blair on the reasons for the Iraq war

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:45:34 +1200

Bit of a history lesson here. On March 18, 2003, 12.35 p.m., from Hansard.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I beg to move,

That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine.

At the outset, I say that it is right that the House debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right, but that others struggle for in vain. Again, I say that I do not disrespect the views in opposition to mine. This is a tough choice indeed, but it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down now and turn back, or to hold firm to the course that we have set. I believe passionately that we must hold firm to that course. The question most often posed is not "Why does it matter?" but "Why does it matter so much?" Here we are, the Government, with their most serious test, their majority at risk, the first Cabinet resignation over an issue of policy, the main parties internally divided,

18 Mar 2003 : Column 761

people who agree on everything else—[Hon. Members: "The main parties?"] Ah, yes, of course. The Liberal Democrats—unified, as ever, in opportunism and error. [Interruption.]
   The country and the Parliament reflect each other. This is a debate that, as time has gone on, has become less bitter but no less grave. So why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people who have been brutalised by Saddam for so long, important though those issues are. It will determine the way in which Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century, the development of the United Nations, the relationship between Europe and the United States, the relations within the European Union and the way in which the United States engages with the rest of the world. So it could hardly be more important. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation.
   First, let us recap the history of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had used the weapons against Iran and against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear, after the Gulf war, that Iraq's WMD ambitions were far more extensive than had hitherto been thought. So the issue was identified by the United Nations at that time as one for urgent remedy. UNSCOM, the weapons inspection team, was set up. It was expected to complete its task, following the declaration, at the end of April 1991. The declaration, when it came, was false: a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. And so the 12-year game began.
   The inspectors probed. Finally, in March 1992, Iraq admitted that it had previously undeclared weapons of mass destruction, but it said that it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. Again the inspectors probed. In October 1994, Iraq stopped co-operating with the weapons inspectors altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed. In March 1996, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of WMD was made. By July 1996, however, Iraq was forced to admit that declaration, too, was false.
   In August, it provided yet another full and final declaration. Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive biological weapons programme and, for the first time, said that Iraq had weaponised the programme—something that Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening while the inspectors were in Iraq.
   Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in the 1990s. Iraq was then forced to release documents that showed just how extensive those programmes were. In November 1996, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles

18 Mar 2003 : Column 762

that could be used for weapons of mass destruction. Then a further "full and final declaration" was made. That, too, turned out to be false.
   In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites. In September 1997, lo and behold, yet another "full and final declaration" was made—also false. Meanwhile, the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, the existence of which had always been denied by the Iraqis.
   In October 1997, the United States and the United Kingdom threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. Finally, under threat of action in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did continue, for a few months. In August, co-operation was suspended.
   In December, the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of weapons of mass destruction unaccounted for. Then, in December 1998, the US and the UK undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facility as we could.
   In 1999, a new inspection team, UNMOVIC, was set up. Saddam refused to allow those inspectors even to enter Iraq. So there they stayed, in limbo, until, after resolution 1441 last November, they were allowed to return.
   That is the history—and what is the claim of Saddam today? Why, exactly the same as before: that he has no weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance, finally resulting in the inspectors' leaving in 1998—seven years in which he hid his programme and built it up, even when the inspectors were there in Iraq—when they had left, he voluntarily decided to do what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.
   When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far-reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, and possibly more than 10 times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; and an entire Scud missile programme. We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years—contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence—Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
   Resolution 1441 is very clear. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has for years been in material breach of 17 UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate, the first step being a full and final declaration of all weapons of mass destruction to be given on 8 December last year.
   I will not go through all the events since then, as the House is familiar with them, but this much is accepted by all members of the UN Security Council: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself, incidentally, is a material breach. Iraq has taken some steps in co-operation, but no one disputes that it is not

18 Mar 2003 : Column 763

fully co-operating. Iraq continues to deny that it has any weapons of mass destruction, although no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes it.
On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, and details all the unanswered questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It lists 29 different areas in which the inspectors have been unable to obtain information. On VX, for example, it says:

"Documentation available to UNMOVIC suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX".

On mustard gas, it says:

"Mustard constituted an important part . . . of Iraq's CW arsenal . . . 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for . . . additional uncertainty"

with respect to over 6,500 aerial bombs,

"corresponding to approximately 1,000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard."

On biological weapons, the inspectors' report states:

"Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres . . . Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."

On that basis, I simply say to the House that, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the Security Council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach. What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes, there are minor concessions, but there has been no fundamental change of heart or mind.
   However, after 7 March, the inspectors said that there was at least some co-operation, and the world rightly hesitated over war. Let me now describe to the House what then took place.
   We therefore approached a second resolution in this way. As I said, we could have asked for the second resolution then and there, because it was justified. Instead, we laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441, or be in material breach. That is not an unreasonable proposition, given the history, but still countries hesitated. They asked, "How do we judge what is full co-operation?"
   So we then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests, based on the document that they published on 7 March. Those tests included allowing interviews with 30 scientists to be held outside Iraq, and releasing details of the production of the anthrax, or at least of the documentation showing what had happened to it. The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to co-operate with them.
   So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full co-operation; and that, if he did so, the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme that would extend over a period of time to make sure that disarmament happened. However, if Saddam failed to meet those tests to judge compliance, action would follow.
   So there were clear benchmarks, plus a clear ultimatum. Again, I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable proposition.

18 Mar 2003 : Column 764

   Last Monday, we were getting very close with it. We very nearly had the majority agreement. If I might, I should particularly like to thank the President of Chile for the constructive way in which he approached this issue.
   Yes, there were debates about the length of the ultimatum, but the basic construct was gathering support. Then, on Monday night, France said that it would veto a second resolution, whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate, even at that point.
   Last Friday, France said that it could not accept any resolution with an ultimatum in it. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. However, the fact is that France remains utterly opposed to anything that lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.

I realize not everyone likes to read Hansard, and I certainly didn’t when I was at law school. Perhaps this excerpt from later on might be more useful and it is the crux of the international disagreement. The Prime Minister outlined his position on resolution 1441:

It is correct that resolution 1441 did not say that there would be another resolution authorising the use of force, but the implication of resolution 1441—it was stated in terms—was that if Iraq continued in material breach, defined as not co-operating fully, immediately and unconditionally, serious consequences should follow. All we are asking for in the second resolution is the clear ultimatum that if Saddam continues to fail to co-operate, force should be used. The French position is that France will vote no, whatever the circumstances. Those are not my words, but those of the French President. I find it sad that at this point in time he cannot support us in the position we have set out, which is the only sure way to disarm Saddam. And what, indeed, would any tyrannical regime possessing weapons of mass destruction think when viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam over these 12 years? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions has only been matched by our feebleness in implementing them. That is why this indulgence has to stop—because it is dangerous: dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us; dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, and even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace against us; and dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity, when, in fact, if pushed to the limit, we will act. But when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total in its impact. It is true that Iraq is not the only country with weapons of mass destruction, but I say this to the House: back away from this confrontation now, and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating in their effects.

   I do believe Mr Blair was right in his last sentence, because Saddam Hussein would have armed Iraq more and more.
   We know history has shown us that there gaffes along the way with a loss of many lives, Coalition and Iraqi, but from the point of view of international law, the above outlines pretty well why the war began: a breach of resolution 1441. This was also why Congress voted yes to attacking Iraq, not the reasons now given by certain politicians.
   As I wrote in an earlier post on the subject, countries have taken two positions on the resolution: the US–UK one, which says 1441 must be enforced if the UN Security Council is to save any face; and the French one, which required a second resolution authorizing force (but which it said it would veto). Countries like New Zealand took the latter position.
   I make no judgement on which is right and which is wrong here.
   Certain American presidential candidates need to level with the American people on why they are changing their minds about the Iraq war. The reasons I have heard from the likes of Sen. Clinton are so far fabrications at worst, and the result of a poor memory at best.
   Sen. Clinton voted to enforce a UN Security Council resolution, just as her husband did in Kosovo, without a second resolution.
   She needs to tell the American people why her position on enforcing international law has now changed and I see nothing wrong if she merely fronted up with her rationale.
   As I said in the comments to that earlier post, I do not mind the anti-war brigade or the anti-war rhetoric of the US Democratic Party as long as their arguments are founded in truth. There are strong arguments against going into Iraq backed by many nations, but it is very odd that they are not used; instead, Bush- and troop-bashing seem to be the norm. That makes me question their motives and it makes me rather sad for those who believe their arguments: what they do is divide a country and hurt us all.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Rover 75: the English patient?

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:44:18 +1200

I’ve inputted some information into Autocade over the last half-hour about the Rover 75*, a model that saw the end of volume British-owned car manufacturing—and which might mean the beginning of two marques in Red China. Here I chart the history of this tragic car, beset by publicity gaffes from BMW and a British press with its claws out, only for it to begin making good produced in Shanghai and Nanjing. Even in Italy it won an award for the most beautiful car when it launched, but the Brits never warmed to the 75. Summary: fairly timeless look, but I still wouldn’t buy one due to quality concerns.

* It took many times longer to copy and paste this into Vox (hours!) than writing and researching all of the below, due to the site crashing my browser due to a script error constantly!

Rover 75 Mk I

Rover 75 Mk I

Rover 75. 1998–2004 (prod. 169,250, 1998–2003). 4-door saloon, 4-door LWB saloon, 5-door estate. F/F, 1794 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC), 1997, 2497 cm³ (V6 DOHC), 1951 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. DOHC). Retro-themed and too-English Rover styled by Richard Woolley, with lavish use of chrome. Soft ride to distinguish it from BMW cars. Very robust, reﬁned car but never appealed to enthusiasts; suffered from BMW’s indecision on and changes to marketing from launch day onwards, as well as British media apathy. Related MG ZT from 2001, after production shifted to Longbridge for all models following BMW sale of Rover. LWB saloon brought back Vanden Plas tag temporarily.

MG ZT Mk I

MG ZT 190_2

MG ZT. 2001–4 (prod. 27,149 all models, incl. Mk II). 4-door saloon, 5-door estate. F/F, 1794 cm³ petrol, 1951 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. DOHC), 2497 cm³ (V6 DOHC). Sporting versions of Rover 75, ﬁnally with ﬁrmer suspension and better handling. Helped keep MG Rover numbers up for a short time, though package began looking more dated toward the end of the run. V8 model introduced 2003, covered separately.

MG ZT 260

MG ZT 260

MG ZT 260. 2003–5 (prod. 883 incl. Rover 75 V8). 4-door saloon, 5-door estate. F/R 4601 cm³ (V8 SOHC). MG Rover, on a shoestring budget, sourced a new V8 engine from Ford and, in order to get it working, changed the standard 75 platform to rear-wheel drive. Prodrive did the initial work; MG Rover brought it in-house. Hairy, raw car, in line with MG image, and with few visual cues to signify the larger engine other than badging and four exhausts. Facelift one year in, in 2004; automatics introduced toward end of run (bound to be rarest of all), but production came to an end in 2005, with no Chinese equivalent.

Rover 75 Mk II

Rover 75 Mk II

Rover 75. 2004–5 (prod. unknown). 4-door saloon, 4-door LWB saloon, 5-door estate. F/F, 1794 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC), 1997, 2497 cm³ (V6 DOHC), 1951 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. DOHC). Essentially carryover technology from Mk I with cosmetic facelift, while Project Drive eliminated certain parts deemed unnecessary to cut costs, which meant less reﬁnement on some models. Never had its full run as MG Rover collapsed and the 75 found its rights sold to SAIC of China. V8 model introduced in 2004, covered separately. LWB model simply called Limousine, rather than Vanden Plas, for these ﬁnal years.

MG ZT Mk II

MG ZT Mk II

MG ZT. 2004–5 (prod. 27,149 all models, incl. Mk I). 4-door saloon, 5-door estate. F/F, 1794 cm³ petrol, 1951 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. DOHC), 2497 cm³ (V6 DOHC). Facelifted ZT with minor changes, but no real mechanical changes—and no real improvement to sales. Production shifted to Nanjing, China after collapse of MG Rover in UK, restarted in 2007.

Rover 75 V8

Rover 75 V8

Rover 75 V8. 2004–5 (prod. 883 incl. MG ZT 260). 4-door saloon, 4-door LWB saloon. F/R, 4601 cm³ (V8 SOHC). Short-lived Ford V8-powered version of 75, with platform re-engineered by Prodrive and Rover to rear-wheel drive. Front grille, supposedly inspired by Rover P5B, controversial at the time, accused of copying Audi, and designer’s name not released by MG Rover. No direct predecessor—last hairy Rover V8 was SD1 Vitesse in 1980s. Good performance but car seemed heavy; interior and insulation kept English club-lounge feel. Fuel economy in the high 10s, low 20s (mpg).

Roewe 750

Roewe 750

Roewe 750. 2006 to date (prod. unknown). F/F, 1794 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC), 2497 cm³ (V6 DOHC). Rebodied Rover 75. SAIC acquired the rights to the model in 2005 and proceeded to make its own version on the long-wheelbase platform. British consultants Ricardo did restyle and update. However, SAIC was forced to create a new marque, Roewe, after Ford bought the Rover brand that they wanted; hence, Roewe logo has the same shape as old Rover Viking longship one. Two noses: small grille for lower-spec; large grille (à la last Rover 75 V8) for higher-spec. Not as well built as old 75 according to early reports, with less safety equipment than western markets expect.

MG 7

MG 7

MG 7. 2007 to date (prod. 13,000 approx.). 4-door sedan, 4-door LWB sedan. F/F, 1794 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC), 2497 cm³ (V6 DOHC). Chinese edition of MG ZT, offered with both Mk I and II grilles contemporaneously. Engines upgraded to comply with latest Euro IV legislation, and quality said to be better than those of the cars coming off Longbridge in 2005 thanks to new factory at Nanjing. Improved speciﬁcation. No estate announced. Played heavily on MG’s heritage when launched.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Brits are in love with Carla Bruni-Sarkozy

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:09:18 +1200

Les Anglais amoureux de CARLA BRUNI SARKOZY

From France 2, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy got a much better reception in the UK than in France. A nice summary of the very packed two days for the Sarkozys, with an emphasis on the First Lady. The kiss in the segment is a nice, romantic finalé to the piece.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The cameras are on Carla: video from the French state visit

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:01:03 +1200

08-03-26-LONDRES-Arrivee-WINDSOR[1]

This video, from the Élysée, was taken yesterday when the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the First Lady arrived in London to meet HM Queen Elizabeth II and HH the Duke of Edinburgh. I wrote in a comment on Timothy’s Vox blog, after reading an article about it, that Mme Sarkozy did not know where to stand and tried to follow her husband and the Queen on the inspection. I was wrong: looking at this video, the First Lady knew exactly where to go and accompanied Prince Philip in her meet-and-greet. The Jacqueline Kennedy comparisons aren’t invalid.
And it seems the newly hyphenated Carla Bruni-Sarkozy is on her way to being the most photographed woman of 2008: her image sells political, fashion (she’s wearing Dior by John Galliano) and gossip media.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Something I have in common with GWB

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:23:05 +1300

George W. Bush’s first car was a Triumph. So was mine. Come to think of it, my mother’s first car was a Triumph, too—I sort of wound up with hers when I started driving and she bought another car. Dad bought a Triumph as his first car in New Zealand, but it wasn’t his first in his lifetime.
   Unless you count toy cars, in which case my first was a Chevy, my second was … you guessed it, a Triumph.
   Rob Muldoon used to drive his Triumph 2500S to work when he was Prime Minister (who needs chauffeurs? Get your lazy butts out of the LTDs!).
   A great brand, now owned by BMW, and unlikely to see the light of day again. Shame, really. I still would be happy to get a nice Dolomite Sprint.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Guess who’s coming to dinner?

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:20:16 +1300

During a visit by then-PM Robert Muldoon at New Zealand House, the following were present, as noted in one of his memoirs:

British prime ministers Callaghan, Wilson, Heath and MacMillan
Governors-General Porritt, Ballantrae, Cobham
The son of former Governor-General Freyberg
Gordon Jackson

Spot the odd one out. Gordon Jackson, the actor.
Perhaps he was doing research for his role as the head of CI5 in The Professionals? He always did seem rather chummy with the Home Secretary in the series, and it was mentioned that the PM thought highly of him.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

BAFTA nominees announced

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:06:56 +1300

I know the writers’ strike in the US is almost resolved, probably because the Oscars are looming, but if it isn’t remedied in time, there are always the British Academy Awards (BAFTAs) in the UK. The nominees were announced last week.

Sienna Miller_MEDIASEED MPEG2 and FLV_1

Eva Green Accounement_MEDIASEED MPEG2 and FLV_1

Eva Green Interview_MEDIASEED MPEG2 and FLV_1

Eva and James GV_MEDIASEED MPEG2 and FLV_1

Read and post comments | Send to a friend