Blogscrape

I don't do awards. Let me qualify that. I do give space to some international press freedom awards because I consider them of crucial importance in helping to publicise heroic journalists, most of whom live and work in totalitarian states.

I have also covered one British award, that given in memory of Paul Foot, because it champions investigative reporting.

Today I'm pleased to mention another, The Bevins Prize, which is particularly apposite in the wake of the Wikileaks revelations and the consequent importance of "data journalism".

The award was founded in honour of political journalist Anthony Bevins who was one of the few reporters willing to spend the time to sift through raw data.

As a commenter to this blog, simonh, recently pointed out, Bevins was prepared to plough through the detail of select committee reports etc "to get stories that would otherwise have passed under the radar."

Bevins, who died in 2001, worked for several national titles in his career but managed to maintain his own independence. "Wherever he worked," it says on the award site, "Bevins researched rigorously, and regularly broke otherwise untouched – even 'untouchable' – stories."

In that spirit, the award in his name is aimed at encouraging and promoting the relentless pursuit of truth.

The two previous winners were Deborah Haynes, Iraq correspondent for The Times who exposed the plight of translators working for the British army, and Paul Lewis, a news reporter for The Guardian who revealed the circumstances of Ian Tomlinson's death in last year's G20 disturbances.

Now Bevins Prize organisers are calling for entrants to this year's award (a bronze statue of a "rat up a drainpipe", a favourite Bevins' phrase).

Entries must be received by 3 September. Details here.

• WikiLeaks
• Newspapers
• The Times
• The Guardian
• Ian Tomlinson

Photographs from the Guardian Eyewitness series

Defence secretary Liam Fox rebuked by chancellor, who says there are no exemptions for his budget

George Osborne has delivered a rebuke to the defence secretary, Liam Fox, declaring that the costs of Britain's new Trident nuclear deterrent would come from the main defence budget.

In a sign of the Tory leadership's growing impatience with Fox, who has embarked on what Downing Street sources have dubbed "freelance" missions, the chancellor said there could be no special accountancy exemptions for the defence budget.

Speaking in Delhi, Osborne said: "The Trident costs, I have made it absolutely clear, are part of the defence budget. All budgets have pressure. I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence.

"I have made it very clear that Trident renewal costs must be taken as part of the defence budget."

His remarks will be seen as a reprimand for Fox, who has complained that the MoD was being asked to pay the £20bn costs of replacing Trident.

Fox believes that those costs should be the Treasury's responsibility, because Britain's continuous at-sea defence is a matter of national security.

The defence secretary told BBC1's Andrew Marr show on 18 July: "There has always been an understanding that the [capital] budget for the nuclear deterrent came from outside the core defence budget. Running costs for the deterrent have always come from inside.

"That is something we are discussing in the runup to the spending review. To take the capital cost would make it very difficult to maintain what we are currently doing in terms of capabilities."

There have been tensions for some time between Fox and Osborne over Trident. The Treasury regards Fox's remarks as a classic example of ministerial lobbying before a spending review.

Osborne is due to outline the tightest spending squeeze in a generation in October. One source said: "The costs of Trident have always come out of the MoD budget. We know what Liam is up to. But does he expect that the department of culture will pay for Trident?"

The MoD has been promised it will be treated more lightly than other departments in October. But these reassurances are aimed at troops in Afghanistan.

Senior Whitehall officials made it clear yesterday that if the cost of Trident has to come out of the defence budget there would be a serious knock-on effect on the rest of Britain's large weapons project.

"It will be a huge blow," said one source, who asked not to be identified.

The MoD declined to comment.

• Trident
• Nuclear weapons
• George Osborne
• Liam Fox
• Defence policy
• Conservatives
• Liberal-Conservative coalition

I'm just back from a dawn cycle hire excursion. I picked up my bike at the six a.m. switch-on time from a docking station right outside the London Hospital - a subconscious betrayal, perhaps, of my deep pessimism about two-wheel travel in the capital. There's a slot on each stand to the left of the bike and - being a bit dim about these things - I wasn't sure if the idea was to shove in my "pioneer's" scheme member access key and pull it straight out again or leave it there. The latter worked. A red light went amber then green, the bike was liberated from its housing and after I'd released the stretchy band for securing stuff to the luggage holder from the upright of the stand, heaved it on to the pavement.

As previewers have observed, the bikes' weight and bulk look belie how easy they are to ride. I pedalled pretty effortlessly down Whitechapel Road. The three gears worked smoothly and the brakes did what brakes are meant to do. There's a warning message between the handlebars about the potential danger from motor vehicles turning left. Yes indeed. With the Gherkin in my sights ahead I could have struck out for the City, but rather than push my luck I turned off down the side streets and meandered for a quarter of an hour or - discovering in the process red flashing lights near the rear wheels - so before returning the bike to a different, bigger docking station further down Whitechapel Road in New Road (pictured).

There were about 50 bikes there and perhaps a dozen vacant stands. I slotted my back easily, the three lights went through their paces and that was that. Then I tried releasing a different bike. Perhaps it was just me, but at first it didn't work. It didn't work for the bike beside it either. I went back to one I'd just returned, and un-docked that one successfully. This was momentarily puzzling. But then I went down the rank again, and found that now my access key worked every time.

My guess is that the system takes a short while to register that you've returned one bike before it's ready to let you take another. If so, it's not much of a problem. It would only be a serious hindrance to serial hirers taking advantage of the first thirty minutes of each hiring being free who have, say, stolen state secrets and are being pursued by armed agents of MI5. On the strength of this first, short experience I'd give the scheme high marks. I even persuaded a curious lady onlooker who'd just commuted in from Barking on the District Line that she should have a go.

For more experiences and views head across to Matthew Weaver's live blog of the scheme's first day as it unfolds. Like mine, most responses seem pretty favourable so far.

Update, 08:34 City Hall says that over 12,000 people have now signed up as members and 6,000 membership keys have been activated. 5,000 of the bikes are available at 315 working docking stations. Boris is heralding a "new dawn". Steady on!

• London
• Boris Johnson
• Cycling
• London politics

On Tuesday, Iona Jones told MediaGuardian how she proposed to deal with sharp cuts at Welsh broadcaster S4C. By the next evening, she was out of a job. Here is her last interview

Iona Jones, the chief executive of S4C, arranged to meet me on Tuesday afternoon. She appeared subdued and unusually softly spoken, although the interview, in a discreet Westminster hotel, was at her request.

Six days earlier, MediaGuardian had revealed that the Welsh-language broadcaster, already in a troubled state, faced cuts of 24% in its budget over a four-year period, on top of the £2m shaved off since the May election. Jones was explaining how they might cope.

By Wednesday evening, she was out of a job.

As always, Jones was friendly, physically striking and modern, well-turned-out in a fitted trouser suit. We shared a pot of extra-strong coffee and talked for more than an hour. Did she expect to lose her job? I don't think so. But she certainly picked her words with extreme care.

She was going on the record at a tricky time. S4C, as no one denies, is in the toughest stretch of its 30-year existence. The government's decision to axe the Film Council cast a shadow over our interview.

Jones had been asked to draw up proposals for cuts by the chairman of the S4C authority, and went through some of them.

The plan – radical in S4C terms – had been given to authority members 10 days ago, in preparation for a meeting the following day – Wednesday afternoon.

She prefaced what she had to say with a warning that the S4C model, with two layers, the authority and an executive board, "was not designed for an economic downturn"; that is, swift single-minded action.

She explained: "The scale of cuts needed are not going to be addressed by working at the margins, or focusing on costs.

"There is no room to move other than looking at the scale of what we do."

She had started discussions with her 32 independent suppliers, she said, about what programming was relevant and modern.

"As part of discussions with indies we will have to look anew at the way we commission and contract with them." This meant cutting the numbers, ordering longer runs and dropping some strands.

"A critical element must be to make sure we still have a sustainable sector and a service when we emerge from the next three to four years."

She proposed protecting core peak-time programmes as far as possible, but was very reluctant to axe S4C's HD service, Clirlun, which some independents say is an extravagance. She also pointed to the fact audiences loathed repeats, on which S4C is always forced to rely heavily.

She was discussing a new three-year supply agreement with the BBC including the contract for Welsh news and the channel's soap opera, Pobol-y-Cwm. "The BBC's contribution is a critical part of our service to viewers."

"We will make every effort to position S4C as the national channel for Wales," she concluded, but did not seem to be suggesting adding English-language programmes about Wales. That's how our conversation ended.

S4C, remember, was described as "an investment in social harmony" by the Thatcher government's home secretary, Willie Whitelaw, when he set it up in 1980; the idea was to dampen militancy from Welsh language campaigners.

Now, after 30 years of direct funding by government grant, with little scrutiny, it is in the throes of the rudest of awakenings, from leaks about zero-rated programmes to critics who say it had too much money.

Moreover, the abrupt ousting of Jones, and the way the news was delivered, has struck seasoned Welsh observers as typical and unsatisfactory. A terse 36-word statement late at night offered no explanation. It contained not a word from S4C's chairman, John Walter Jones, a former civil servant head of the Welsh Language Board.

It ended: "There will be no further comment."

The executive board of S4C were scrambled together on Thursday morning to pick up the pieces.

At a stroke it seemed to confirm criticism of the organisation: that S4C is insular, unwilling to subject itself to the scrutiny commensurate with a £101m annual grant.

Alun Davies, Wales assembly member for Mid and West Wales and chair of the Welsh Assembly's recent committee on broadcasting, said: "I want to see the S4C authority issue an immediate statement on what exactly happened. S4C is an important national institution in Wales.

"It needs strategic and far-sighted leadership. That has not existed, and it is clearly urgently required. We don't even know who is running it."

He said he'd had no briefing or contact with S4C over the past three years, or the last months, as their troubles mounted, despite being a former board member. "I am not alone. Those of us active in politics feel neglected. And we are the friends."

He also attacked Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary. "S4C has been poorly treated by the new government. Hunt doesn't understand the media in Wales."

But keeping a low profile is not confined to S4C.

In March a Welsh Assembly review of the creative industries in Wales noted that S4C was not involved in a debate about public service broadcasting, unlike the BBC. Its author, Ian Hargreaves, added: "There is only a subdued debate around S4C. Welsh politicians fear that raising the profile of S4C will result in a challenge to funding from the exchequer."

The easiest explanation for the S4C split is pressure from the prospect of the public spending review in October – the Cardiff-based channel faces harsh decisions that it has never had to make before.

Since 1996, it has received automatic annual budget increases linked to the retail price index, as well as free programmes worth £25m a year from the BBC. This is the first time that anyone in central government has dared to disturb the deal.

The shock has spilled over into disagreements on how cuts can be achieved, just as digital switchover in Wales further fragments viewing.

At the same time, however, relationships between the chief executive and the authority, including the chairman, had deteriorated. When John Walter Jones was reappointed in April for another four years, the die was probably cast.

Also lobbying against Jones were some of the independents, who have only a limited market for Welsh language programmes, and receive 85% of the grant. They tended to resent her brusque approach. Not all are disappointed by her departure.

As Davies said: "She has tried to make them face up to change and act more strategically, and understand the world is changing."

Jones, who is a former editor of the Welsh-language news (supplied to S4C by BBC Wales), and a former ITV Wales executive, set up development deals when she arrived at S4C to try to get new ideas on air. She also concentrated on children's programming.

But last year she also infuriated BBC Wales, with a suggestion to Ofcom that S4C could put its Welsh news contract out to tender.

The bigger problem is that, though the channel does supply English subtitles, and its live rugby games cut across language, only 500,000 people speak Welsh fluently out of a 3 million population.

Alun Davies says that longer term the best solution for S4C would be for it to be directly funded by the BBC licence fee, rather than government grant, to give it a degree of independence.

The issue that will arise now is whether hefty cuts to S4C will lead to the kind of furious reaction from Welsh-language campaigners that once so worried London-based politicians and civil servants.

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

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

• S4C
• Television industry
• Media downturn
• Public service broadcasting
• Wales
• Public sector cuts
• Public services policy

On Tuesday, Iona Jones told MediaGuardian how she proposed to deal with sharp cuts at Welsh broadcaster S4C. By the next evening, she was out of a job. Here is her last interview

Iona Jones, the chief executive of S4C, arranged to meet me on Tuesday afternoon. She appeared subdued and unusually softly spoken, although the interview, in a discreet Westminster hotel, was at her request.

Six days earlier, MediaGuardian had revealed that the Welsh-language broadcaster, already in a troubled state, faced cuts of 24% in its budget over a four-year period, on top of the £2m shaved off since the May election. Jones was explaining how they might cope.

By Wednesday evening, she was out of a job.

As always, Jones was friendly, physically striking and modern, well-turned-out in a fitted trouser suit. We shared a pot of extra-strong coffee and talked for more than an hour. Did she expect to lose her job? I don't think so. But she certainly picked her words with extreme care.

She was going on the record at a tricky time. S4C, as no one denies, is in the toughest stretch of its 30-year existence. The government's decision to axe the Film Council cast a shadow over our interview.

Jones had been asked to draw up proposals for cuts by the chairman of the S4C authority, and went through some of them.

The plan – radical in S4C terms – had been given to authority members 10 days ago, in preparation for a meeting the following day – Wednesday afternoon.

She prefaced what she had to say with a warning that the S4C model, with two layers, the authority and an executive board, "was not designed for an economic downturn"; that is, swift single-minded action.

She explained: "The scale of cuts needed are not going to be addressed by working at the margins, or focusing on costs.

"There is no room to move other than looking at the scale of what we do."

She had started discussions with her 32 independent suppliers, she said, about what programming was relevant and modern.

"As part of discussions with indies we will have to look anew at the way we commission and contract with them." This meant cutting the numbers, ordering longer runs and dropping some strands.

"A critical element must be to make sure we still have a sustainable sector and a service when we emerge from the next three to four years."

She proposed protecting core peak-time programmes as far as possible, but was very reluctant to axe S4C's HD service, Clirlun, which some independents say is an extravagance. She also pointed to the fact audiences loathed repeats, on which S4C is always forced to rely heavily.

She was discussing a new three-year supply agreement with the BBC including the contract for Welsh news and the channel's soap opera, Pobol-y-Cwm. "The BBC's contribution is a critical part of our service to viewers."

"We will make every effort to position S4C as the national channel for Wales," she concluded, but did not seem to be suggesting adding English-language programmes about Wales. That's how our conversation ended.

S4C, remember, was described as "an investment in social harmony" by the Thatcher government's home secretary, Willie Whitelaw, when he set it up in 1980; the idea was to dampen militancy from Welsh language campaigners.

Now, after 30 years of direct funding by government grant, with little scrutiny, it is in the throes of the rudest of awakenings, from leaks about zero-rated programmes to critics who say it had too much money.

Moreover, the abrupt ousting of Jones, and the way the news was delivered, has struck seasoned Welsh observers as typical and unsatisfactory. A terse 36-word statement late at night offered no explanation. It contained not a word from S4C's chairman, John Walter Jones, a former civil servant head of the Welsh Language Board.

It ended: "There will be no further comment."

The executive board of S4C were scrambled together on Thursday morning to pick up the pieces.

At a stroke it seemed to confirm criticism of the organisation: that S4C is insular, unwilling to subject itself to the scrutiny commensurate with a £101m annual grant.

Alun Davies, Wales assembly member for Mid and West Wales and chair of the Welsh Assembly's recent committee on broadcasting, said: "I want to see the S4C authority issue an immediate statement on what exactly happened. S4C is an important national institution in Wales.

"It needs strategic and far-sighted leadership. That has not existed, and it is clearly urgently required. We don't even know who is running it."

He said he'd had no briefing or contact with S4C over the past three years, or the last months, as their troubles mounted, despite being a former board member. "I am not alone. Those of us active in politics feel neglected. And we are the friends."

He also attacked Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary. "S4C has been poorly treated by the new government. Hunt doesn't understand the media in Wales."

But keeping a low profile is not confined to S4C.

In March a Welsh Assembly review of the creative industries in Wales noted that S4C was not involved in a debate about public service broadcasting, unlike the BBC. Its author, Ian Hargreaves, added: "There is only a subdued debate around S4C. Welsh politicians fear that raising the profile of S4C will result in a challenge to funding from the exchequer."

The easiest explanation for the S4C split is pressure from the prospect of the public spending review in October – the Cardiff-based channel faces harsh decisions that it has never had to make before.

Since 1996, it has received automatic annual budget increases linked to the retail price index, as well as free programmes worth £25m a year from the BBC. This is the first time that anyone in central government has dared to disturb the deal.

The shock has spilled over into disagreements on how cuts can be achieved, just as digital switchover in Wales further fragments viewing.

At the same time, however, relationships between the chief executive and the authority, including the chairman, had deteriorated. When John Walter Jones was reappointed in April for another four years, the die was probably cast.

Also lobbying against Jones were some of the independents, who have only a limited market for Welsh language programmes, and receive 85% of the grant. They tended to resent her brusque approach. Not all are disappointed by her departure.

As Davies said: "She has tried to make them face up to change and act more strategically, and understand the world is changing."

Jones, who is a former editor of the Welsh-language news (supplied to S4C by BBC Wales), and a former ITV Wales executive, set up development deals when she arrived at S4C to try to get new ideas on air. She also concentrated on children's programming.

But last year she also infuriated BBC Wales, with a suggestion to Ofcom that S4C could put its Welsh news contract out to tender.

The bigger problem is that, though the channel does supply English subtitles, and its live rugby games cut across language, only 500,000 people speak Welsh fluently out of a 3 million population.

Alun Davies says that longer term the best solution for S4C would be for it to be directly funded by the BBC licence fee, rather than government grant, to give it a degree of independence.

The issue that will arise now is whether hefty cuts to S4C will lead to the kind of furious reaction from Welsh-language campaigners that once so worried London-based politicians and civil servants.

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

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

• S4C
• Television industry
• Media downturn
• Public service broadcasting
• Wales
• Public sector cuts
• Public services policy

Separated couples no longer be able to use secretly obtained documents to reveal their spouse's hidden

Separated couples will no longer be able to use secretly obtained documents to reveal their spouse's hidden assets in divorce proceedings, the court of appeal has ruled.

Previously, a spouse who came across information showing their partner was hiding money could copy it and put it before the court – a protection called the Hildebrand rules that was intended to help the financially impoverished.

After the appeal court ruling that Lisa Imerman could not use information obtained by property tycoons Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz about the financial affairs of their sister's husband at her divorce hearing, spouses will now have to obtain a costly court order to freeze relevant assets, or else a search order.

The documents belonging to Vivian Imerman, the former owner of Del Monte foods, were downloaded from a computer in the office he had shared with the two brothers. Last year, the high court ordered the material to be returned to him – an order yesterday upheld by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, who said the case demonstrated the conflict between the need to preserve Mr Imerman's right to confidentiality and a just resolution of family court proceedings.

Mr Imerman's lawyers said the "groundbreaking" ruling would revolutionise the disclosure of documents in family law cases. Withers solicitors, acting for Lisa Imerman, said the ruling had reversed a protection once given to the financially weaker partner.

• Divorce

Separated couples no longer be able to use secretly obtained documents to reveal their spouse's hidden

Separated couples will no longer be able to use secretly obtained documents to reveal their spouse's hidden assets in divorce proceedings, the court of appeal has ruled.

Previously, a spouse who came across information showing their partner was hiding money could copy it and put it before the court – a protection called the Hildebrand rules that was intended to help the financially impoverished.

After the appeal court ruling that Lisa Imerman could not use information obtained by property tycoons Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz about the financial affairs of their sister's husband at her divorce hearing, spouses will now have to obtain a costly court order to freeze relevant assets, or else a search order.

The documents belonging to Vivian Imerman, the former owner of Del Monte foods, were downloaded from a computer in the office he had shared with the two brothers. Last year, the high court ordered the material to be returned to him – an order yesterday upheld by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, who said the case demonstrated the conflict between the need to preserve Mr Imerman's right to confidentiality and a just resolution of family court proceedings.

Mr Imerman's lawyers said the "groundbreaking" ruling would revolutionise the disclosure of documents in family law cases. Withers solicitors, acting for Lisa Imerman, said the ruling had reversed a protection once given to the financially weaker partner.

• Divorce

Boris Johnson's answer to Paris's Vélib bike-hire scheme launched in London today. Follow live updates and post your views and experiences of Barclays cycle hire

9.16am:
Lots of references to "Boris bikes" on Twitter. The name seems to be catching on.

9.06am:
Rob Ainsley blogging at Real Cycling is "delighted" with scheme, but reports these teething problems:

Some of the bikes have had their brakes overtightened, so that the back wheel hardly goes round. Pedalling one of these feels like going uphill, or cycling home after a particularly large and convivial dinner. (This affected several bikes we tried at the Southwark St station, and the one I took out at Keyworth St.)

The problem with this is that if you take a bike out, find it's stiff and then re-dock it, you have to wait five minutes until you can take another one out. So pioneers are advised to check the back wheel spins OK before putting your key in to take the bike out. Otherwise you'll have five minutes to fill, and presumably in London docking stations are like bus stops and you're not allowed to talk to anyone.

And, inevitably, some tedious whinger had put stickers on some bikes complaining about Barclays sponsoring earthquakes in the third world or something, which involved extra work for some TfL people this morning going round unsticking them.

Working out where the live docking stations are isn't yet totally reliable either. You can't find out from the docking station terminals because they're not fully operational yet. The printed TfL map was compiled a while ago and it shows some docking stations that haven't been built (such as the one on Lambeth Bridge).

The online TfL map shows the updated locations of docking stations, but some of them haven't actually gone live yet (such as the one on Albert Embankment, just down from Lambeth Bridge, which was covered with tape and not yet in service this morning).

8.44am:
The satirical website The Poke has been having fun with the scheme and Photoshop.

Batting away criticism that the £750 million price tag for the Millenium Bicycle was 'scandalous', Johnson boasted that "this extra wheel will be just the beginning. Over time we will add the Millennium Wicker Basket, the Millennium Child Seat, and the Millennium 'Ping' Bicycle Bell – itself large enough to include a five star restaurant hosted by Michel Roux."

8.36am:
Dave Hill has blogs his verdict here.

The bikes' weight and bulk look belie how easy they are to ride. I pedalled pretty effortlessly down Whitechapel Road. The three gears worked smoothly and the brakes did what brakes are meant to do. There's a warning message between the handlebars about the potential danger from motor vehicles turning left. Yes indeed. With the Gherkin in my sights ahead I could have struck out for the City, but rather than push my luck I turned off down the side streets and meandered for a quarter of an hour or - discovering in the process red flashing lights near the rear wheels - so before returning the bike to a different, bigger docking station further down Whitechapel Road in New Road.

8.22am:
Boris Johnson has spoken (with another jibe at David Cameron's Big Society). "This is the Rolls Royce of bicycles. I'm not saying it will win the Tour de France, but it is a beautiful, beautiful machine. I believe this cycling revolution will tackle all sorts of problems in society: pollution, it will help to get us fitter, it will help to tackle the scourge of obesity, or Big Society, as it is sometimes confusingly known. I think it will be a wonderful way of getting people out of their cars."

He adds: "In 1904, 20% of journeys were made by bicycle and in London. I want to see that kind of figure again. If you can't turn the clock back to 1904 ladies and gentlemen, what is the point of being a Conservative?"

Here's the audio thanks to the community blogger SE1.

8.18am:
The prolific letter writer Keith Flett tweets:

8.10am:
Former mayor Ken Livingstone grudgingly welcomes the scheme, but points out he thought of it first. He emailed this statement:

I am delighted that the London bike hire scheme has become a reality at last and I encourage Londoners to register and take advantage of the new bikes."

"Despite the delays and set-backs in delivering the scheme, I believe today marks a step on the road to making London a true cycling city but there remains a concern that while millions has been spent on a central London scheme at the same time Boris Johnson cut cycle funding in many outer London boroughs.

8.05am:
"Barclays Cycle Hire will revolutionise how we get around central London," says Boris's transport man David Brown said. Really?

7.48am:
The early verdict on Twitter has been generally positive. But here are some gripes:

MahaViv: "Do no locks on the London Barclays Bike Hire scheme mean you literally can't even risk stopping for lunch somewhere?"

laurenuu: "Well I already thing [sic] the TfL cycle hire is crap. For the first month you have to register for it in advance. Thought it was making it easier"

Ecojames: London Bike Hire Scheme - yet another scheme to rip off Londoners and tourists alike http://nblo.gs/6m3pE

However, Andrew Garnett, editor of New Transport magazine is more typical in expressing enthusiasm.

"Had my first go on London cycle hire. Brilliant, intuitive bike that you feel rather grand riding. A massive, thumping 10/10 from me!"

7.39am:
The magazine Time Out has prepared this useful clickable Google Map of the all the docking stations, together with a guide to the scheme.

7.33am:
The Londonist blog also likes the bikes with some quibbles about the heft.

Sturdy doesn't really do it justice: these are designed to withstand a beating from both careless cyclists and drunken vandals alike. They're heavy and slow to turn, which might catch out anyone familiar with a nimble Brompton.

In a token gesture towards safety, there's a sign planted in the middle of the handlebars warning cyclists to beware large vehicles turning left. Well, we can't say they didn't warn us! There's also a functional bag holder and strap on the front, which didn't look like the kind of place you'd want to store something valuable like your laptop.

Overall it was a pleasant, indeed fun, experience, and at least one Londonista will be riding to work today to see how the bikes perform on a proper trip.

7.26am:
"Yesterday I was sitting in the office saying 'it's never going to work' and then when I hoped on a bike I was immediately converted. I just felt a celebrity - everyone was like 'are you on one of Boris's bikes'," says new enthusiast Helen Pidd.

7.08am:
Occasional cyclist and the Guardian's London blogger Dave Hill tried out a bike in Whitechapel. He found the appearance of the bikes "over Barclayed" but otherwise he gives them high marks. "I hope Boris isn't listening, but nothing seemed to be wrong with it, so I'm going to give it a provisional 10" he told me.

6.44am:
Not all the docking stations are ready. There are supposed to be 36 bikes available at London Zoo (according to my phone app), but when I went there this morning, just after 6am, only four bikes were there and the docking post was wrapped in hazard tape.

Here's some very amateur mobile phone footage:

6.30am:
Up to 6,000 bikes at 400 "docking stations" were due to made available for hire today for the launch of Boris Johnson's much-trumpeted Barclays Cycle Hire scheme.

Perhaps in an effort to lower expectations, the London mayor has already predicted that "lots of things will go wrong" – and some already have, according to the Evening Standard.

Yesterday, Transport for London confirmed that only about 300 stations and 5,000 bikes would be ready today. They also said that around 11,000 people had registered to use those bikes.

We'll be tracking the first day of the launch as the public puts the bikes, and the docking stations, to the test. Please send us your first impressions.

And if you're having trouble finding one of the hire bikes, try out one of the mobile phone apps reviewed by the Londonist blog.

In Paris the successful Vélib scheme prompted something of craze for performing stunts on the hire bikes, such as riding down steps and skate board ramps and filming the results.

If you happen to spot anything like this, do let us know.

So far the London bikes have had mixed reviews. They are too slow, too heavy, don't have a lock or a basket, but otherwise they're fine, according to the Guardian's Leo Hickman, who was given a preview.

The Green London Assembly member Jenny Jones is an enthusiast, but she's worried it's too expensive, too small compared to Paris, and she doesn't like the lack of a lock either.

Then there's the name. If you object to the official corporate title please suggest another one.

• Cycle hire schemes
• Cycling
• London
• Boris Johnson
• Transport

Boris Johnson's answer to Paris's Vélib bike-hire scheme launched in London today. Follow live updates and post your views and experiences of Barclays cycle hire

7.39am:
The magazine Time Out has prepared this useful clickable Google Map of the all the docking stations, together with a guide to the scheme.

7.33am:
The Londonist blog also likes the bikes with some quibbles about the heft.

Sturdy doesn't really do it justice: these are designed to withstand a beating from both careless cyclists and drunken vandals alike. They're heavy and slow to turn, which might catch out anyone familiar with a nimble Brompton.

In a token gesture towards safety, there's a sign planted in the middle of the handlebars warning cyclists to beware large vehicles turning left. Well, we can't say they didn't warn us! There's also a functional bag holder and strap on the front, which didn't look like the kind of place you'd want to store something valuable like your laptop.

Overall it was a pleasant, indeed fun, experience, and at least one Londonista will be riding to work today to see how the bikes perform on a proper trip.

7.26am:
"Yesterday I was sitting in the office saying 'it's never going to work' and then when I hoped on a bike I was immediately converted. I just felt a celebrity - everyone was like 'are you on one of Boris's bikes'," says new enthusiast Helen Pidd.

7.08am:
Occasional cyclist and the Guardian's London blogger Dave Hill tried out a bike in Whitechapel. He found the appearance of the bikes "over Barclayed" but otherwise he gives them high marks. "I hope Boris isn't listening, but nothing seemed to be wrong with it, so I'm going to give it a provisional 10" he told me.

6.44am:
Not all the docking stations are ready. There are supposed to be 36 bikes available at London Zoo (according to my phone app), but when I went there this morning, just after 6am, only four bikes were there and the docking post was wrapped in hazard tape.

Here's some very amateur mobile phone footage:

6.30am:
Up to 6,000 bikes at 400 "docking stations" were due to made available for hire today for the launch of Boris Johnson's much-trumpeted Barclays Cycle Hire scheme.

Perhaps in an effort to lower expectations, the London mayor has already predicted that "lots of things will go wrong" – and some already have, according to the Evening Standard.

Yesterday, Transport for London confirmed that only about 300 stations and 5,000 bikes would be ready today. They also said that around 11,000 people had registered to use those bikes.

We'll be tracking the first day of the launch as the public puts the bikes, and the docking stations, to the test. Please send us your first impressions.

And if you're having trouble finding one of the hire bikes, try out one of the mobile phone apps reviewed by the Londonist blog.

In Paris the successful Vélib scheme prompted something of craze for performing stunts on the hire bikes, such as riding down steps and skate board ramps and filming the results.

If you happen to spot anything like this, do let us know.

So far the London bikes have had mixed reviews. They are too slow, too heavy, don't have a lock or a basket, but otherwise they're fine, according to the Guardian's Leo Hickman, who was given a preview.

The Green London Assembly member Jenny Jones is an enthusiast, but she's worried it's too expensive, too small compared to Paris, and she doesn't like the lack of a lock either.

Then there's the name. If you object to the official corporate title please suggest another one.

• Cycle hire schemes
• Cycling
• London
• Boris Johnson
• Transport

The IPCC said the officers acted lawfully, but said the threat of using the spray might have been sufficient

Three police officers investigated over an incident on 13 September 2009 in which two people in a pub in Brentwood, Essex, were sprayed at close range with CS gas have been cleared of any wrongdoing. The Independent Police Complaints Commission said Alan Lethbridge and an unnamed woman should have been warned before an officer, assisted by two colleagues, used the spray. Lethbridge, a builder from Romford, was allegedly being aggressive. The IPCC said the officers acted lawfully, but said the threat of using the spray might have been sufficient to calm Lethbridge.

• Police
• Independent Police Complaints Commission

My most recent effort for Comment Is Free reflected on Tuesday's Olympics countdown excitement:

I gorged on the glamour of the coming games, served on a shiny tray by Britain's leading broadcasters. Two years to go until London's Olympiad and soaring expectation is just about official. Presenters beamed, workers obligingly expressed their deep commitment, Lord Coe defended the market-calibrated ticket allocation system and appealed for go-for-it volunteers ("Have you got what it takes?".)

It was all about the sport, the build-up, the event. Search your memory, though, and recall that a short burst of athletic competition is meant to also be a means to a greater end. A big reason why Britain pipped rival bidder Paris five years ago was the promise of "legacy", in the form of a gigantic urban renewal scheme to bring new wealth and wellbeing to the capital's hard-up East End. The sports venues are on schedule. Their budget has not over-run. But will prosperity flow from the Olympic Park once the runners and jumpers have gone?

Now read on.

Prime minister launches emergency legislation as dry fuel pumps leave drivers stranded

Thousands of Britons heading to Greece for their summer holiday last night risked becoming caught up in the chaos of a nationwide strike by protesting truck drivers that is threatening fuel, food and medical shortages across the country.

From the popular Chalkidiki peninsula in the north, to Rhodes in the south, holidaymakers were affected by the mayhem amid reports that supplies had dried up at petrol stations countrywide.

At least 100,000 tourists who had driven to Greece from neighbouring Bulgaria and Serbia were stranded, with thousands abandoning their cars by the side of the road and officials taking the highly unusual step of beseeching visitors to stock up on fuel in Macedonia.

The prime minister, George Papandreou, resorted to emergency legislation late on Wednesday, telling the drivers that unless they returned to work they would face stiff fines and their vehicles being requisitioned.

It was the fourth time since the end of military rule in 1974 that a mobilisation order – usually announced at times of war or great natural disaster – has been issued by a government. "This is an unpleasant decision … but the country cannot afford adventures in the middle of the summer," Papandreou said.But the reaction was swift and unforgiving.

"It is highly unusual that after just three days of going on strike we should be mobilised in this way," said Giorgos Stamos, a member of the truck drivers' union. "The order is coming through to [drivers] but I have no idea how they are going to react to it."

In a culture where workers' rights are seen as sacred, the mobilisation call has riled unionists with the KKE communist party newspaper, Rizospastis, declaring that the government was bent "on smashing every striker's right".

"There is nothing left but to gather forces and fight," it proclaimed from its front page.

The prospect of tourists being mired in further mayhem deepened as tourist industry officials said it would be days before the situation returned to normal.

On islands, where the vast number of holidaymakers are headed, vital food stuff and medicines are already in short supply.

Boat connections to the mainland are also threatened as petrol supplies quickly diminish.

In a bout of especially bad timing for the beleaguered government, the chaos erupted after domestic terrorists warned tourists this week that they would turn Greece into a "warzone".

In a week when Britons traditionally begin their summer break, flying into airports across Greece, air traffic controllers compounded the chaos by staging a stringent work-to-rule protest that saw dozens of flights either cancelled or delayed.

"What we are seeing is a catastrophe for tourism, for our [debt-stricken] economy," said Yannis Evangellou, one of the industry's leading figures. "There have been hundreds of cancellations, particularly by tourists who had planned to drive into northern and central Greece."

Last night the truck drivers defied the emergency order to return to work immediately, saying they would decide what to do later today. "The federations will express their position on what we have negotiated," George Tzortzatos, head of Greece's Truck Owners' Confederation, told reporters, without elaborating.

Wendy Taylor, 55, a doctor from Newcastle on holiday in the Peloponnese, said that the popular tourist area was running out of fuel and that hotels had stopped taking bookings.

"We heard that there was a problem on Monday, when we tried to go out for the day. We had to drive around about six different petrol stations before we found one – people kept waving us away. Kalamata, the biggest town near us, has run out of fuel. We have heard there are shortages on the islands as well."

The drivers launched the strike last Monday. But by yesterday visitors who had planned trips around the isles were faced with the prospect of fuel-deprived cruisers and yachts remaining docked.

The protests have been sparked by fury over the unpopular economic austerity measures the ruling socialists have been forced to enact to stave off bankruptcy.

The 33,000-strong union of truck drivers is up in arms over government plans to open up the freight industry – one of many "closed–shop" professions blamed for keeping the economy uncompetitive.

But with the nation's economic recovery now more dependent on holidaymakers than at any other time – and with most Greeks also poised to begin their summer break – the industrial action has been quick to trigger widespread condemnation.

Tourism, which has already taken a blow in the wake of repeated riots and strikes, accounts for one in five jobs and nearly 20% of GDP. An estimated 3 million Britons visit the country every year topping arrivals alongside Germans.

Despite popular opposition to policies not seen since the second world war, most Greeks understand that their country is under intense pressure from the EU and IMF to make the changes following the organisations' decision to inject it with €110bn in emergency aid in May.

• Greece
• Greece

A fine old mess. No wonder schools minister Gove has got detention.

• What a fine old time they are having during the parliamentary recess. Dave strutting the foreign stage "plain speaking", telling it like it is. Others back in their constituencies, basking in their new and exalted status, enjoying the limelight, drinking it in. But there is less fun on offer for some, so spare a thought for Michael Gove and Nick Gibb, education head honchos. They'd like to be winding down for the recess but instead, sources tell us, they have been left behind, hitting the phones calling every local authority and academy sponsor personally to clarify the Building Schools for the Future situation after their botched lists fiasco. They are having to schmooze each one individually to attempt to undo the PR disaster of their first chaotic announcement. And no, their discomfort doesn't match that of the schools so cruelly mucked around and disappointed. But discomfort it is, so that's a start.

• And with the advent of the "big society", there is noticeably less talk of "broken Britain", even in the Sun. But that must be because away from the public gaze, things are coming together. Evildoers are being brought to book. Injustices fixed. Which is good, but it does finally mean the end for Graham Rumsey who, as a Tory councillor in Kent and deputy chair of a finance committee, disgraced himself by being sent to jail for failing to pay his council and business tax. And for failing to control his dangerous dog, which attacked two teenagers. It took six months and time with Her Majesty for him to conclude – and for others to persuade him – that perhaps he was not cut out for public life in the Cameroonian era. Better late than never as they say.

• Meanwhile, the battle for the leadership of Conservative Future, the party's youth wing, hots up and we glean from the best website chronicler of the race, Tory Bear (not "Tory Boy" as we said on Tuesday) that our friend Craig Cox is the man to beat. His experience with the Bring Back Slavery poster he held aloft a while back is doing him no harm at all. We also see that David Cameron has turned to one of the party's youngest MPs, Andy Stephenson from Pendle, to bring order where traditionally there is chaos, as vice chair of the party with responsibility for the bright young things, including Conservative Future. He will have seen the recent fate of Grant Tucker, the chairman of Conservative Future in South Wales, who was forced to resign for a web post which wished George Galloway dead. But then Andy is a former bigwig in CF himself. He knows coping with the madness is all part of the challenge.

• Almost as big a challenge as that involved in cutting costs. But don't worry, Priti Patel, another of the new intake, has that in hand. She has been asking questions about how much departments pay in union costs, through civil servants allegedly devoting too much of their time to trade union-related duties. The cost of this exercise – 111 questions tabled in the six days before recess, £17,094. So if the unions don't empty the coffers, Priti will.

• As the Times straddles the fences between calling for greater freedom of information and condemning the revelatory works of WikiLeaks, we can see that in future the website's founder Julian Assange may have quite a bit to answer for. New this week, inspired by the release of US military records, is the site NukeLeaks, which will chronicle the secret rows and cock-ups in the nuclear industry. No shortage of potential whistleblowers there. With Homer Simpson first in line.

• Finally, can anyone explain why we don't take music mogul Kanye West more seriously. "I don't have a fucking Twitter," he raged last year. "Why would I use Twitter??? I only blog 5% of what I'm up to in the first place. Everything that Twitter offers I need less of." So now, a year later, after his first day tweeting – an "amazing first day" that left him "floored by the warm reception" and needing "a moment" to recover, let us be the first to say it. Welcome to Twitter, Kanye.

Government cuts in public funding mean our athletes can fail at London 2012 and not worry too much about it

Either I'm starting to go bald, or my hair is getting pinker. Anyway, never mind that. I'm sure, like me, you received news that cuts in public funding could jeopardise Great Britain's chances of winning medals in 2012 with a mixture of relief and punch-the-air joy. Because, let's be honest, nobody in their right mind wants to start hurtling down the runway towards the take-off board of the London Olympics without knowing there's a psychological sandpit of bloody good excuses to cushion the landing at the end of it. If there isn't, you're likely to end up with multiple shattered hopes.

Thank goodness, then, for the collapse of the global economy, which arrived with the sort of impeccable timing associated with Bryan Robson's famous surges into the penalty area/lounge bar. Admittedly, many would have felt happier if Gordon Brown, a man with a safe pair of hands when it comes to pointing the finger, was in charge as the Olympics lurches unstoppably towards us like a cash?eating zombie. Thankfully, having watched David Cameron in action since he took nominal charge of running Britain on behalf of the banks, we can see that when it comes to blaming somebody else for this entire, horrible mess, the ruddy-cheeked Richard Littlejohn-shaped youngster has what it takes to be the next Graham Taylor, forever patrolling the political touchline impotently chuntering about misguided fiscal-stimulus measures.

Some will say the garment-rending over the government's decision to pull the plug on our swimmers and force our pistol-shooters to lower their sights is just typical British complaining. After all, doom-mongers assured us that the proposed hi-tech architectural marvel of gravity-defying engineering that is to form the centrepiece of the London Games could not possibly be made ready in time. Yet it now seems Sue Barker's hair is on course for completion well ahead of schedule. The view from here, however, is that the budget?cutters are simply acting in the best interests of the country. The British sporting public is fragile. We need an emotional safety net.

Just when Jessica Ennis, Phillips Idowu et al had been awarded the title of "the golden generation" by a media ever-eager for the chance to slap the phrase "so-called" in front of things, austerity arrived. As a result of the slashing of funding, weightlifters will have to tighten their belts, fencers must turn their swords into ploughshares and Team GB's famous cyclists are forced to combine fundraising and training by working as couriers in central London, where the constant yells of the public to "get off the bloody pavement, you moron" will no doubt dent their collective confidence. The fate of those who participate in fringe sports such as clay pigeon racing, downhill shooting and Greco?Roman antics, meanwhile, hangs in the balance. This is a huge relief for everybody concerned.

You don't need to know much about sport to realise that a lack of money will fatally undermine any chances we have of winning anything. Just look at the record of England's criminally under-funded national football team. Or indeed our poor tennis players, forced to play in purpose-built all-weather tennis centres, while their eastern European counterparts benefit from training on state-of-the-art patches of waste ground provided for them free of charge by their governments, who often blow up their homes as well just to give them that added little extra performance-enhancing boost. Frank Lampard isn't the type to complain, but you can bet he wishes he'd come from the sort of country that would have provided its young attacking midfielders with a ball made out of orange peel and an open sewer to kick it over.

Thankfully the London Olympics isn't just about delivering a plausible get-out for 2012. No, it's about a legacy of buck-passing that will endure for a thousand years (Subject to demand. Normal terms and conditions apply. Your statutory rights are not affected). What this Olympics will provide is a nationwide infrastructure of responsibility avoidance that will allow future generations of youngsters across the country to reject the offer of a visit to a swimming pool with the words, "Oh, no, Mum. I mean, what is the point? It's not Olympic-sized, there's a shortage of coaches and the design of the roof leaves the air highly chlorinated, which will reduce my oxygen intake. And besides, Heston Blumenthal's Stalingrad Feast is starting in 10 minutes and I've ordered pizza."

The new Olympic 2012 excuse will fuse traditional British cast-iron reasoning such as "It was too hot and the food was very greasy" with contemporary favourites ("We were tired") and modern cutting-edge excuse technology such as "Genetic scientists have proven that British people lack the so-called coming-first chromosome, which is present in 97% of all Germans".

"The excuses we provide for London will inspire youngsters across the country to take up extreme mitigation, middle-distance unaccountability or association whingeing," Lord Coe will likely say at some point, "and ultimately that has to be great for the country as a whole, because nobody wants to see a Britain that is littered with broken dreams and weeping skinny people in spandex."

• Olympic games 2012

It has become steadily more difficult to justify in law, and yet it has survived till now because employers have been desperate to keep it

Where older workers are the issue, it is never long before employers mutter about clearing out dead wood. The real dead wood cleared away by yesterday's announcement on the retirement age is the rotting intellectual timber which has supported discrimination for too long. Someone who is happily and productively working on a Friday can be forcibly shunted out on Monday morning for no better reason than that they happen to have turned 65 at the weekend. In a world where formal equality for female, black and disabled employees is now entrenched in the law, this is clearly an unsustainable position – and all the more so since age discrimination is already barred in relation to recruitment, training and promotion.

The whole concept of a mandatory retirement age is thus a dual anomaly: it leaves older people uniquely exposed when compared to other groups, and leaves their job security uniquely exposed in contrast to their other rights at work. Not surprisingly, it has become steadily more difficult to justify in law, and yet it has survived till now because employers have been desperate to keep it – for reasons that are every bit as understandable as they are ultimately indefensible.

For one thing, retirement provides a means of making redundancies without redundancy cheques, but there are also human factors, which go beyond penny pinching. No one wants to tell a long-serving member of staff that they are not longer performing as they once did, and automatic retirement provides one means to avoid such awkward conversations. The proper way around them, of course, is for managers to manage – to appraise carefully what each individual older worker can and cannot do, and where necessary to nudge them away from heavy graft, and towards activities and hours which might provide a better fit.

For much of British industry, this will involve an overdue culture shift, and the CBI warned yesterday that the government's ambitious deadline leaves little time for this, which at the literal level is true. The problem with this pleading is that it has – for a decade or more – been obvious which way the wind was blowing. The Labour government had examined mandatory retirement once, and promised to review it again, and it had only shrunk from abolition because it already had too many fights with business on its hands. Now we have a coalition government that is legislating to delay the age at which workers can draw their state pension, so they can hardly afford to shrink from the fight to give them the right to keep on earning a wage. It will be a wrench for business, but the retirement age just has to go – for it is not longer up to the job.

• Retirement age
• Older people
• Work & careers

Who said what to whom in the course of the negotiations remains a matter of acute political controversy

The victors write history. But as last night's BBC2 documentary on the negotiations that followed May's indecisive election result has shown, the very attempt to write that history – or at least a first draft of it – can just as easily open a new front in a continuing battle. The cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, would have done well to remember that when he agreed to give an interview to the BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson. By contributing to the programme, he has, first, come perilously close to appearing to be a participant in a matter that is still a live and contentious issue. And, second, he has revived traditional suspicion of the role that Whitehall officials play in politics.

Well before the election, Sir Gus had made no secret of his concern that, in a time of economic turbulence, a strong and stable government was needed to calm the markets. In March he appeared in front of the justice select committee to explain the preparations he was making for a hung parliament. He even published the draft chapter of a rewritten cabinet manual setting out the procedure he proposed for negotiations between the parties. His admirable intention was to head off a turbulent market response to political uncertainty with a clear and sustainable route from hung parliament to stable government that, as he told MPs, "can carry through the key decisions that are needed". Unremarked at the time, the implications now are clear: if there was no majority, the Whitehall establishment favoured coalition over minority government. Last night, however, it emerged that his role may not have been strictly confined to that of facilitator. It seems at least possible that, in the five tense days of negotiations among participants already exhausted by a gruelling election, he may just have rested his finger on the scales – in favour of coalition, and decisive action on the deficit.

In the programme Sir Gus acknowledges that he was hugely relieved by the speed and certainty of the outcome. He admitted that he had warned the parties that the pace of negotiations was important, and the more comprehensive the agreement the better. Sir Humphrey would have agreed entirely. But he would not have gone on television to talk about it. Whitehall is indignant at the charge that the cabinet secretary has dabbled his fingers in murky political waters. His office insists Sir Gus was merely seeking to seize the moment to promote the role officials played in a historic sequence of events. But who said what to whom in the course of the negotiations remains a matter of acute political controversy. It is important to the prime minister, who has to persuade his increasingly restless backbenchers that he did not mislead them about the negotiations. It is important to Labour, as it seeks to mount a case against the coalition and woo disheartened Lib Dems. And it is vital to the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, who last night modified his position again on what he said and what he heard about the prospects for electoral reform and the economic situation during those five tense days that took his party from electoral disappointment into the heart of power.

The politically committed always regard Whitehall's vaunted impartiality with a little incredulity. By providing invaluable cover for Mr Clegg's unexpected readiness to reverse his campaign stance against Tory economic plans, Sir Gus's intervention risks reviving the lack of trust between Labour and Whitehall that so undermined the 1997 Blair administration. With a fresh electoral mandate, an incoming administration is at its most powerful. But in uncertain times, it is also at its most vulnerable to the weight of official orthodoxy. The advice given by Sir Gus will surely have shaped the context in which the Lib Dems made their choice. He may not have breached the code, but he surely strewed flowers along the path to a Lib Dem-Conservative coalition.

• Liberal-Conservative coalition
• Civil service

David Cameron says he wants a new economic and cultural partnership with India (Report, 28 July). However, by his government's order, Indians who travel to the UK regularly for business or cultural reasons are charged a fee of £610 for a 10-year visa, with the final amount usually higher due to currency conversion charges. Compared with the around £90 Indians are charged for a 10-year visa to the US and the around £50 for a multiple-year visa covering most European countries, this fee seems not just disproportionate but designed to discourage exactly those regular visitors who would underpin any "economic and cultural" partnership. I can confirm, as an Indian with some links to the UK, that having to pay such an unjustifiably high fee does not at all encourage me in the belief that India and the UK share any kind of partnership.

Rohan Oberoi

Onex, Switzerland

• In the past few years thousands of Brits have retired to India, mainly Goa. It is almost impossible to get other than a six-month tourist visa, so most people would stay on such a visa and when it expired leave for a few weeks – to Nepal or Sri Lanka, or back to the UK – to get a new one. But after a recent rule change, there must now be a gap of two months between visas. So if you have sold up in the UK, purchased property in India and now live there, you have a problem of finding somewhere to live for the two months. This also applies to gap-year students who in the past would tour around Asia using India as a base. None of these people are in any way a drain on India's economy; in fact they are bringing in money. How about a fair playing field on visas?

Alan Fry

London

• Vince Cable and David Cameron are wrong about immigration policy being linked to Britain's trade with the world. Already, countries like the UK, the US, Australia and Canada have among the most open immigration policies in the world. Just try moving permanently to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kenya or South Africa: it can be extraordinarily difficult. You can't just pitch up in most nations and look for a job. Immigration is hugely tough in most countries, and much harder than moving to Britain. Yet it does not seem to hurt the trade policy of India, Egypt, Russia or China that they don't readily accept foreigners. So why should it damage Britain's ability to trade if the government toughens up the current position, especially at a time when so many Brits are unemployed?

Geoff Hill

Johannesburg, South Africa

• Sixty-plus people in India representing the UK government and business, of whom only four are women. If we're not careful the Indian community will think we have a problem with women and girls.

Margaret Prosser

Hove, Sussex

• India
• David Cameron
• Immigration and asylum

The sector must be creative and collaborative to survive the huge funding cuts it faces

Mark Ravenhill advocates cutting arts budgets by slicing the administrators rather than the artists (Let's cut the arts budget, 26 July). He states that there has been a "massive growth" in marketing departments, as if these people who have worked hard to increase awareness of the arts were somehow part of the problem, not the solution. That is an odd position for an any artist to take. Career opportunities grow largely because of "backroom" work.

Ravenhill also states that fundraising – in which "glossy brochures are produced, lavishly catered events are held and bundles of complimentary tickets are given away" – hasn't worked in the last 20 years. This is quite simply false. Last year the private sector gave £655m to culture in the UK. Ravenhill's cynicism about the private sector is unwelcome. The potential growth from sponsors and donors is genuine. Yet Arts & Business can confirm that philanthropy cannot in the short term fill the gap made by cuts of 25% or more. On this Ravenhill is wrong – the cuts could be lethal.

He does suggest some ideas of real value, calling for "a co-operative model … in which public arts organisations come together to promote their work and build new audiences" and a "new way of thinking". Yes, the sector must now more than ever be creative, open-minded and together as it faces its greatest challenge for generations.

Individual artists and administrators have written articles and waved placards, but unlike, say, doctors and the universities, they have not spoken effectively as one voice, let alone offered agreement on practical solutions. The cultural community is fragmented, and politicians are fond of the divide-and-rule strategy.

That is why Arts & Business set up the Culture Forum in association with the National Campaign for the Arts, which launched this week and will act as a unique, unified voice for the whole cultural community – responding to George Osborne's call for a debate on the impending cuts and how each part of society will tackle the crisis. Polly Toynbee this week praised the arts for "drawing people together" (Arts for everyone is cheap considering its rich returns, 28 July). Well, already hundreds of people are following, lobbying and observing the forum's discussions online.

In September the Culture Forum will feed back to the government its discussions on the impact of the cuts, the need to phase any cost savings to reduce the damage, the potential for mergers, and new ways of working and sharing. Ideas will be presented on potential new income and funding models, and ways to grow the private sector.

We must now all stop point-scoring, and people should resist the temptation to say "cut them, but not me". Artists are often solitary beings, but we should look to the choir, the ensemble of actors and the orchestra, not only as metaphors for group harmony, but as a way of working together with Arts Council England and all the other cultural agencies. Together we are stronger, and that means fighting by the side of the craftsman, singer, dancer, writer, actor, painter, philanthropist – and even the banker.

• Arts policy
• Arts funding
• Museums
• Theatre
• Budget

The shocking decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to charge any officers over the death of Ian Tomlinson (Editorial, 23 July) exposes the root-and-branch corruption of the justice system. Rather than protecting the innocent, the police, CPS and Independent Police Complaints Commission have been shown to protect each other's backs. From the start, when the IPCC accepted the police line that no CCTV cameras witnessed the attack on Tomlinson, through Dr Freddy Patel's botched first postmortem, up to this latest scandal, the justice system has closed ranks to protect its own.

The fact that PC Simon Harwood, who struck Tomlinson before he died, had previously been investigated for alleged aggressive behaviour and yet was allowed to join the notoriously violent Territorial Support Group is an outrage. As revealed by the Guardian last November, 5,000 complaints were made about the activities of the TSG over four years, yet only nine were upheld.

Tomlinson's case is far from the first. Since 1969 over 1,000 people have died in police custody in Britain, yet not a single police officer has been charged with manslaughter or murder during this time. The Tomlinson family should be given public funding should they decide to continue the legal battle for justice for Ian – as should all families seeking justice for those who have died at the hands of the police. They should also have the right to see PC Harwood's disciplinary proceedings conducted in the open. We will be picketing the offices of the director of public prosectuions in London at midday today.

Patrick Ward United Campaign Against Police Violence, Samantha Rigg-David Sean Rigg Justice and Change Campaign, Janet Alder Sister of Christopher Alder, Saqib Deshmukh and Zia Ullah Justice for Habib "Paps" Ullah, Bob Crow General secretary, RMT, John O Miscarriages of Justice UK, Chris Knight and Camilla Power G20 Meltdown/Democracy Village, Andy Hewett and Teresa Delaney Co-conveners, Green Left, Martin Smith Socialist Workers party, Emily Apple Fitwatch, Anna Mazzola Hickman & Rose, Andy May Defend Peaceful Protest, Ian Bone, Jeff Parks Legal Defence & Monitoring Group

• Ian Tomlinson
• Police
• Independent Police Complaints Commission