This article is part of the special report, End of the Road, about decarbonizing freight transport.

BERLIN — In aiming to fulfill Ursula von der Leyen’s promise to make the Continent carbon neutral by 2050, the European Commission is betting on railways.

Transport emissions currently account for more than a quarter of the bloc’s total carbon footprint; and because trains emit less greenhouse gases than trucks, shifting cargo and passengers from road to rail would help cut that pollution.

The trouble is that railways are struggling because countries have been reluctant to stump up the hundreds of billions of euros needed to handle the extra traffic. Without that money, there’s little chance of the Commission president-elect’s European Green Deal pledge of slashing emissions by at least 50 percent by 2030 and carbon neutrality by mid-century becoming reality.

“The Green Deal without basic infrastructure just won’t work,” said Monika Heiming, executive director of the Brussels-based European Rail Infrastructure Managers lobby group. “Rail is saturated, a modal shift needs to come with capacity, but we don’t have capacity left.”

Despite carrying 17 percent of the EU’s freight and 8 percent of passengers, railways account for only 3 percent of the bloc’s transport emissions. Road transport is responsible for more than 70 percent. Even with the growing pressure to go green, transport emissions are steadily rising.

In a 2015 EU Court of Auditors report, the total external costs (noise, pollution and accidents) of transporting a ton of cargo for 1 kilometer were 2.01 cents for trucks and 0.8 cents for trains (barges do even better).

The EU’s goal is to shift 30 percent of road transport at distances of over 300 kilometers to trains and barges by 2030, and to reach 50 percent by 2050.

But that’s going to mean more pressure on Europe’s already congested tracks, raising questions over how to finance, maintain and modernize rail systems.

Running on empty

One in 4 Deutsche Bahn long-distance trains are now delayed due partly to capacity problems on Germany’s rail network. Cities are also struggling; the rail tunnel running under Brussels is facing a capacity crunch that could require a new €2 billion investment to relieve the strain, and Amsterdam’s big hubs are running at capacity too.

It’s estimated that some €500 billion is needed by 2030 to complete work on the EU’s trans-European networks — mainlines that handle the bulk of cross-border traffic. Much of that should be spent on buttressing tracks, upgrading signaling systems and drilling new tunnels, bridges and freight-shifting hubs.

That means cash is needed, and quick.

The German government last month promised to spend an extra €11 billion by 2030. That comes on top of an €86 billion funding bonanza earmarked for Deutsche Bahn. But experts say more is needed to add the 30 percent extra capacity DB executives want to achieve, in addition to doubling passenger numbers by 2030. Upgrading signaling and laying on extra-long 740-meter freight trains will also help. But DB can’t finance those investments itself.

“You cannot make enough on the tickets alone,” said a senior rail executive.

One reason government money is needed is that rail projects just aren’t attractive to private investors. Heiming reckons it takes at least 20 years to make back money invested in new signaling systems, for example. Rolling out the European Rail Traffic Management System — a digital signaling system that allows more trains to run on tracks at the same time — on the main corridors will cost at least €15 billion.

That’s not say nothing is happening. There are some big infrastructure projects underway. A new undersea link between Denmark and Germany dubbed the Fehmarn Belt should slash transit time between Copenhagen and Hamburg, while engineers are boring a tunnel under the Alps that can relieve truck traffic through the Brenner Pass between Austria and Italy. There’s also the long-mooted Rail Baltica project to link up Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Those three projects alone cost up to €20 billion, with much of the cash coming from EU funds backing up modest capital investments from governments.

Politicians are warning that those big rail projects will need continued commitments through the 2020s to get them up and running. If that doesn’t happen, then von der Leyen’s plans are in trouble.

Since 2014, the EU has said it will funnel €24 billion through the Connecting Europe Facility to transport projects through to 2020. Rail has sucked up €16.3 billion of that, split between 266 different projects, according to European Commission statistics.

Now countries are haggling over the next budgetary period starting in 2021. The Commission wants capitals to provide €30.6 billion for standard transport projects, but Brexit and frugality from some of the bloc’s richer countries means steep cuts to overall spending are likely when the budget is finally approved next year.

“The new CEF program risks being unable to sufficiently co-fund the decarbonization projects needed to ensure that the EU reaches its 2030 climate targets,” said Libor Lochman, executive director of the Brussels-based Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies.

This article is from POLITICO Pro: POLITICO’s premium policy service. To discover why thousands of professionals rely on Pro every day, email [email protected] for a complimentary trial.

A no-deal Brexit will be no picnic — especially for Britain’s lucrative financial services industry.

That was the warning from the European Commission Wednesday, laid out in its emergency contingency plans for a no-deal scenario, 100 days before the U.K. is due to leave the EU.

Commission officials said they had made only the most basic provisions for business-as-usual to continue in the financial sector — as regards the central clearing of derivatives, certain over-the-counter derivatives contracts, and central depository services.

For everybody else, it’s potentially lights out — a message that Brussels wants banks, insurance companies, asset managers, and the rest to hear loud and clear.

The EU’s contingency measures, covering 14 policy areas, illustrate that there are indeed ways to mitigate some of the potentially disastrous effects of the U.K. crashing out without a Withdrawal Treaty on March 29. But Commission officials stressed that they could not prevent all of the negative fallout and they warned against any suggestions — already circulating among some hardline Brexiters — that simply walking away would be better than the deal negotiated by Prime Minister Theresa May.

“We are mitigating against no deal,” Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis said at a news conference. “But in terms of disruption to the economy, disruption to the citizens, I think it’s clear what the order of preference is — and clearly remain is better than leave and deal is better than no-deal.”

Dombrovskis also warned that a no-deal scenario could present obstacles to the U.K. achieving the optimum future economic relationship with the EU. “Should it come to no deal, yes there are certain mitigating measures,” he said. “But they are still not allowing the advantages of a proper Brexit with a deal and then of course moving to the proper work on our future economic relations.”

However, officials who described the no-deal package notably declined to address the politically sensitive question of what would happen along the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The Commission punted that question to Dublin, warning that all EU countries would be obligated to reinstate customs regimes with the U.K. in the event of a no-deal departure.

They also sidestepped discussion of the impact on the EU’s own budget, which would potentially face large shortfalls in 2019 and 2020 if the U.K. refuses to pay its share of the bloc’s seven-year financial plan which began in 2014. Though one EU diplomat said such a move by the U.K. would rapidly poison the situation. “It’s going to get nasty,” the diplomat said.

Despite those omissions, the Commission’s presentation on Wednesday was a clear air-raid siren for Brexiteers who are urging Theresa May and her government to stop trying to convince the U.K. parliament to ratify the 585-page Withdrawal Treaty that was agreed last month and instead just walk away.

“Contingency measures cannot reproduce a Withdrawal Agreement and a transition period,” an EU official said. “Contingency cannot equal membership of the European Union.”

The measures would be “by definition and, by a rule, temporary in time and unilateral in nature,” the official said, adding: “This is very much a damage limitation exercise. If we were to come to a no-deal scenario, a hard Brexit, there will be negative consequences. We cannot mitigate all of those by contingency measures.”

By some analysis, the measures announced by the Commission were softer on the U.K. than had been expected — allowing, for instance, the central clearing of derivatives in the U.K. to continue for 12 months, for central depository services to continue for 24 months and, in the aviation sector, for flights between the U.K. and EU to continue for a year. The contingency plan also appears to give U.K. hauliers somewhat greater allowances for trucking cargo on EU roads.

But overall, the emphasis by Brussels was on its one-sided approach to the emergency planning. In some cases, such as the provisions on the derivatives industry, the measures look as though they would facilitate a large-scale shift of financial services business to the European Continent from Britain.

The Commission, in its presentation, also pointedly noted that the mitigation of some potential problems — such as the provision of residency rights for U.K. citizens living in the remaining 27 EU countries — would have to be handled by national capitals, and that Brussels could offer limited, if any, guarantees.

“There are limits to what we can do from an EU perspective,” one official said. “What we can do is encourage all member states to deal with this matter in as clear and efficient and as citizen-friendly fashion as possible.”

In response to questions, Commission officials waved off any suggestion that some sectors of U.K. society might find the contingency provisions more appealing that the Withdrawal Treaty, saying life would be worse for almost everyone.

“The EU single market will fall away on the 30th of March and we will fall back on much more basic, international conventions, some of them many many decades old,” an official said. “So, I think, all-in-all: no.”

BERLIN — Ursula von der Leyen is planning a new career as European Commission chief in Brussels, but the German defense minister still has questions to answer back home.

An investigative committee of the German parliament — the toughest instrument that lawmakers can use to probe government misdeeds — is digging into how lucrative contracts from her ministry were awarded to outside consultants without proper oversight, and whether a network of informal personal connections facilitated those deals.

And the lawmakers looking into the case say von der Leyen will still have to face their questions even if she is confirmed as Commission president in a vote in the European Parliament on Tuesday.

“Whatever job Ms. von der Leyen has in the future won’t change in any way the fact that the committee will subpoena and question her,” said Tobias Lindner, a member of parliament and the security policy spokesperson for the Greens opposition party.

“What happened in the past in the defense ministry under her leadership happened — and we will get to the bottom of that.”

Von der Leyen and her ministry declined requests for interviews for this story. Last November, she told the German parliament there had been “mistakes” in how external consultants were hired and said “this never should have happened.” But she defended the use of such consultants, saying they had been required to undertake a huge overhaul of the ministry.

Von der Leyen blamed the problems on a mixture of negligence, corner-cutting and mistakes by individuals overwhelmed by their work. But others have put forward a less innocent explanation — that some consultants had privileged access to ministry officials that helped them circumvent rules and win contracts worth millions of euros.

Although there is no suggestion that von der Leyen herself was part of this network, the increased use of external consultants has been a hallmark of her tenure as defense minister.

Interviews with members of the investigative committee, witness testimony and documents obtained by POLITICO all suggest external consultants have been able to gain growing influence on the inner workings of the defense ministry during the five and a half years that von der Leyen has been in charge.

“From the beginning it was Ms. von der Leyen’s desire and political intention that external consultants would gain influence,” said Matthias Höhn, a member of parliament and the spokesperson on security policy for the left-wing Die Linke party.

When von der Leyen faces the committee, she will likely also face questions about an internal inquiry by her ministry into the affair. In that investigation, “central questions weren’t asked, suspicions weren’t followed up,” said Dennis Rohde, a member of parliament for the center-left Social Democrats (SPD).

“All of this, if you ask me, was a crude attempt to distract from misconduct and cover up for people among the leadership,” Rohde added.

Criticism of the ministry over the scandal has come from multiple opposition parties and the SPD, the junior partner in Germany’s coalition government. Members of von der Leyen’s conservative camp have backed her and the ministry but even some of them have been less than full-throated in their defense.

Here’s the lowdown on what’s become known as the Berateraffäre (consultant scandal):

The scandal

The first time the public heard about the scandal was in the fall of 2018, when internal reports by Germany’s Federal Audit Office were leaked to the media.

The watchdog, which monitors German government cashflows, described dozens of irregularities in the hiring of external consultants by von der Leyen’s defense ministry.

Those consultants played a more significant role than the ministry had publicly claimed, several media reports said: In 2015, for example, auditors estimated that the ministry had spent up to €100 million on external consultants, but only officially declared €2.2 million for the purpose. A year later, the ministry had spent up to €150 million on advisers while declaring only €2.9 million.

The auditors’ main criticism wasn’t that the ministry paid for outside expertise — which security experts say is needed, particularly when it comes to applying new digital technologies. Rather, it was about the way contracts were awarded.

Analyzing 56 out of 375 contracts awarded to consultants during the years 2015 and 2016, the Federal Audit Office found that in the vast majority of cases, the defense ministry did not provide sufficient justification for deciding that external advice was needed; in more than a third of the cases, procedures did not follow the normal rules for awarding contracts.

For example, consultants for a project called “Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)” — examining how best to analyse and use data from the A400M transport aircraft  — were hired using an umbrella IT contract set up for a completely unrelated purpose, circumventing the regular procedure for awarding contracts.

After news of the scandal broke, von der Leyen’s ministry promised measures to prevent further mistakes. But after some high-ranking officials refused to talk to parliamentarians, opposition lawmakers joined together in December to force the establishment of the investigative committee that would allow them to subpoena witnesses.

The ministry

When von der Leyen took over the defense ministry back in December 2013, Germany’s armed forces were a shambles. Military equipment was counted by hand and many records existed only on paper, as von der Leyen told the German parliament last November.

“We’re in the middle of digitalizing a major organization of a quarter million people,” she said, stressing that “to manage such a task, you need the outside view of things” and that every German government ministry uses external consultants.

Eager to reform the apparatus, von der Leyen — a longtime ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel who had already spent eight years leading two other ministries — discharged the official who oversaw procurement and announced that external advisers would now be involved in overseeing significant projects.

She also hired a consortium of consultants including consultancy KPMG to analyze flagship procurement projects. Their report portrayed a dysfunctional organization, describing some ministry officials as overwhelmed and highlighting procurement contracts that heavily favored the interests of Germany’s arms industry.

Von der Leyen kicked off a far-reaching restructuring process. That gained her respect among some soldiers — but didn’t make her lots of friends in other parts of the military, her ministry and industry, according to officials working under her at the time.

The key players

Such reforms of Germany’s crisis-ridden armed forces might have been overdue — but the way von der Leyen approached the process allowed external consultancies to gain influence in the ministry and the military, according to several members of the Bundestag’s investigative committee.

In the summer of 2014, von der Leyen announced that Katrin Suder, a successful business consultant, would join the ministry in the powerful position of armaments state secretary, overseeing billions of euros in procurement spending and reporting directly to the minister.

The idea behind bringing in Suder — a physicist with a doctorate in computational neuroscience who had spent 14 years climbing the ranks at McKinsey — was to make processes more efficient and to have someone with high-level corporate experience who could go toe-to-toe with arms industry executives.

But the hiring also set off a process that helped external advisers increase their influence, members of the Bundestag’s committee said.

Over the years that followed, contracts were awarded to several consultancies. No company, however, has been under as much scrutiny by lawmakers as global consultancy Accenture.

Much attention has focused on the role of Timo Noetzel, a managing director at Accenture and a friend of Suder. The two have known each other since they were colleagues at McKinsey, Noetzel told MPs in June — a fact they had always “been open about,” he said.

And Suder wasn’t Noetzel’s only personal contact at the ministry. He described Erhard Bühler — a general who, as then-head of the ministry’s planning department, helped push for Accenture to be involved in the PLM project — as his “mentor.” Bühler, who is now commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum, is also the godfather of Noetzel’s children.

Bühler has said that his personal connection to Noetzel played no role in his professional decisions. But some members of the investigative committee say they are convinced such and similar “buddy networks” helped Accenture and other consultancies land contracts.

Referring to the PLM project, which was covered under an IT umbrella contract, the SPD’s Rohde said that Bühler and two other department leaders in the ministry “wanted Accenture to get the job, and that’s why they impeded competition and initiated a breach of the law.”

Bühler and other ministry officials rejected such accusations in their testimony to MPs. When it comes to the PLM project, for example, Accenture had been the ministry’s first choice because of the company’s experience in the field, Bühler said.

Accenture did not reply to a request for an interview. 

Within four years of von der Leyen taking over at the ministry, Accenture’s earnings from work with Germany’s armed forces rose from €459,000 in 2014 to around €20 million in 2018, according to Spiegel magazine.

An investigation ‘full of gaps’

Von der Leyen’s ministry has been little help in shedding light on the affair, multiple investigative committee members said.

An internal investigation, which began after the auditors’ reports were leaked and was overseen by the ministry’s legal chief Andreas Conradi, was “superficial, full of gaps, contradictory and not sufficient to tackle problems of this scale,” two SPD members of the investigative committee wrote to von der Leyen in a letter dated June 21, 2019, seen by POLITICO.

“We will have to look at the question of why the internal investigation of the ministry was so sloppy, and if that was intentional, which I suspect it was, then whether the aim was to produce an investigative report that would somehow calm down parliament but ideally not reveal anything,” said Lindner of the Greens.

His party has joined forces with other opposition parties and the Social Democrats to call for removing Conradi from the post of the ministry’s attorney of record, which allows him to attend all sessions of the committee.

Henning Otte, the spokesperson for von der Leyen’s conservative bloc on the investigative committee, declined to be interviewed for this article. He has previously expressed a markedly different view from members of other parties on the ministry’s efforts to get to the bottom of the affair, offering praise for “thorough and comprehensive” cooperation with parliament.

Von der Leyen’s role

The committee’s next job will be to find out how much von der Leyen knew about possible misconduct by officials working under her. Lawmakers will continue to subpoena and question key witnesses until the end of the year, including von der Leyen and her former undersecretary Suder, who resigned from her post last year.

At this point, it remains unclear whether von der Leyen was involved in setting up the technical details of contracts with consultants, or how much knowledge she had of the cases now being investigated.

“The fact is that so far neither the internal investigation nor the behavior of her ministry have reflected any great commitment to clear up this matter,” said the SPD’s Rohde. “That’s why we will summon von der Leyen … even if she becomes EU Commission president.”

Höhn of the socialist Die Linke party added that it is “grotesque that so far, there hasn’t been any disciplinary action — not just at leadership level, but anywhere at all.”

“That’s a glaring failure of leadership, all the way to the very top, because it sends a signal to the ministry that it doesn’t matter at all if you stick to the rules or don’t — it won’t have any consequences either way,” he said.

Au cinéma, à la télévision, dans les musées, en BD, en produits dérivés… les super héros Marvel sont partout. Ils débarquent même à l’université de Baltimore où un cours qui leur est consacré sera bientôt proposé.

«Tu viens dejeuner? – Non, je peux pas, j’ai cours de Marvel». Cette discussion, les étudiants de l’université de Baltimore risquent bientôt de l’entendre et même de la tenir. En effet, la fac de cette ville située dans l’état du Maryland va proposer à partir du printemps 2015 un cours consacré à l’univers Marvel. Comme s’ils en avaient besoin, les responsables de la fac ont tenu à préciser: «ce cours sera le premier du genre aux Etats-Unis».

L’enseignement sera dispensé non par Stan Lee mais par Arnold T.Blumberg, un historien spécialisé dans la culture des comics qui a lui-même eu l’idée de ce cours sur Marvel. L’intitulé exact sera « Media Genres: Media Marvels » et il aura pour but d’analyser «comment les séries télévisés, les films et les comics Marvel associés au monomythe du « voyage du héros » de Joseph Campbell offrent une vision intéressante de la culture moderne».

Bien d’autres univers et franchises auraient pu être choisis pour articuler le cours, mais si Blumberg a opté pour «la maison des idées», à l’origine des Avengers, Iron Man, Thor et autres Captain America c’est parce que «les efforts consentis pour créer un univers viable d’intrigues, de personnages, de flashbacks réguliers qui ne laissent aucune question sans réponse, sont sans précédents». Même le récent -et excellent- Gardiens de la galaxie, qui cartonne au box office, devrait être étudié car «c’est un film qui prouve deux choses fondamentales: les gens ne sont pas lassés des films de super-héros ; et Marvel a créé un univers dans lesquels les fans acceptent tous les développements, et sont même prêts à plus». L’avantage avec un tel cours, c’est que les étudiants ne culpabiliseront pas quand ils iront voir un film Marvel au cinéma plutôt que de réviser.

Épanouie à la tête de sa famille nombreuse, Élodie Gossuin a décidé d’imprimer sur sa peau les jours qui ont changé sa vie.

Devenir maman était pour Elodie Gossuin une vraie nécessité. Désormais très accomplie dans son rôle de mère, l’ex-Miss France et Miss Europe a choisi de marquer le coup en s’offrant deux tatouages à la gloire de ses enfants.

Depuis son compte Twitter, et comme elle en a l’habitude pour toutes ses annonces officielles, Elodie Gossuin a donc partagé cet autre heureux évènement. Ce jeudi midi, la jolie maman a publié la photo de ses avant-bras récement tatoués accompagnée du message “Parce qu’il y a des jours qui voient naître et vous font renaître”. Afin de se souvenir pour toujours de l’arrivée de ses quatre jumeaux, l’animatrice a fait inscrire leurs dates de naissance. Le 21 décembre 2007, Élodie Gossuin accueillait Rose et Jules et le 9 octobre 2013, Joséphine et Léonard venaient à nouveau faire son bonheur. À son poignet droit, la fière maman porte l’inscription 21 2007 et à gauche dans une écriture manuscrite elle porte les chiffres “neuf dix treize”. En attendant de fêter jeudi prochain le premier anniversaire de Joséphine et Léonard, Elodie s’est offert son propre cadeau de super maman. On ne sait pas si Bertrand Lacherie, l’époux de Miss France 2001 et père de ses enfants, a lui aussi succombé à l’envie de se faire tatouer.

Elodie Gossuin n’est en tout cas pas la première à inscrire l’arrivée de ses enfants sur sa peau. Angelina Jolie a depuis longtemps entré les coordonnées géographiques des lieux de naissance de ses petits, Johnny Hallyday a choisi les lettres chinoises pour symboliser Jade et Joy, David Beckham a le nom de sa petite Harper tatouée sur la main, Laure Manaudou et Frédérick Bousquet ont tous les deux inscrit Manon dans leur cou.

Ne manquez pas notre hors-série spécial Bébés Stars disponible en kiosques pendant tout le mois d’août.

Crédits photos : Ch. Lartige/CL2P

Click Here: cheap parramatta eels jersey

Fort de ses plus de douze millions de spectateurs, Qu’est-ce qu’on a fait au bon Dieu? ne pouvais pas s’arrêter là. Deux des acteurs du film, Frédéric Chau et Medi Sadoun, ont révélé qu’une suite allait être mise en chantier.

«Pas pour l’instant, mais je pense qu’on va le faire parce que tout le monde a envie de le faire, les acteurs, moi…». C’est ainsi que Philippe de Chauveron, le réalisateur, avait répondu au mois de mai sur le plateau du Grand Journal à la question d’une suite à son film Qu’est-ce qu’on a fait au bon Dieu?.

La comédie est devenue un véritable phénomène, dépassant les douze millions d’entrées en salles et devenant ainsi le sixième film français le plus vu en France (derrière Bienvenue chez les Ch’tis, Intouchables, La grande vadrouille, Astérix et Obélix: mission Cléopâtre et Les visiteurs). De glorieux aînés qui ont pour la plupart eu des suites, excepté Les Ch’tis et le film d’Eric Tolédano et Olivier Nakache, les réalisateurs préférant conférer à leurs films un statut unique.

Click Here: cheap south sydney rabbitohs jersey

Ce ne sera pas le cas donc de Phillipe Chauveron, prêt pour un numéro deux de Qu’est-ce qu’on a fait au bon Dieu? Ce sont deux des comédiens du film qui l’ont confirmé mercredi sur l’antenne de RTL, au micro de Stéphane Bern. «Oui il y aura une suite en 2016» ont affirmé Frédéric Chau et Medi Sadoun, respectivement Chao et Rachid, deux des gendres du couple formé par Chantal Lauby et Christian Clavier. Mais pas n’importe comment. «Il faut étudier la bonne piste, on suit la vie des familles. Il faut que l’histoire soit beaucoup plus surprenante que la première» ont-ils confié. Un challenge donc pour Philippe Chauveron qui avait réussi une jolie comédie familiale sur le thème de la tolérance sans jamais tomber dans le racisme et l’antisémitisme.

Click:台灣外送茶服務比較
Au troisième jour du nouveau procès d’Oscar Pistorius la défense présentait son dernier témoin. Le procureur Gerrie Nel ne l’a pas épargné.

La pression monte à Pretoria après trois nouvelles journées de procès. Oscar Pistorius a déjà été reconnu coupable mais il doit maintenant patienter pour découvrir la teneur de sa sentence. Lundi et mardi les avocats du sportif ont fait défiler trois de leurs témoins: son agent, sa psychologue et un travailleur social. Aujourd’hui, la défense jouait sa dernière carte.

Annette Vergeer a eu l’air très impressionnée au moment de se présenter à la barre. D’une voix fluette, légèrement tremblante, l’agent de probation a tenté d’expliquer pourquoi, selon elle, Oscar Pistorius ne devrait pas aller en prison. Les deux arguments principaux de la Sud-africaine de 28 ans étaient d’une part, que l’athlète avait un casier judiciaire vide avant d’abattre sa compagne, de l’autre, que son handicap lui rendrait la vie très difficile dans les prisons locales. Mme Vergeer préconisait donc une assignation à résidence et des heures de travail d’intérêt général.

Gerrie Nel a ensuite pu interroger le témoin. Le procureur a démonté un à un tous les arguments avancés par Annette Vergeer. Il a par exemple précisé qu’un détenu pouvait demander à être enfermé dans une cellule individuelle, ce qui annulerait le risque de violences de la part d’autres prisonniers. Pour Gerrie Nel, la seule réponse possible face à l’acte d’Oscar Pistorius est une peine lourde de prison ferme. Dans le cas d’un homicide volontaire, la loi sud-africaine permet d’infliger jusqu’à 15 ans de prison.

La parole est désormais au procureur. Gerrie Nel a affirmé aujourd’hui qu’il en aurait très certainement terminé d’ici demain soir. La juge Thokozile Masipa pourra alors délibérer en son âme et conscience. Elle seule, devra choisir la sanction appropriée au crime. Sa décision doit être annoncée vendredi.

Crédits photos : Foto24/Getty

Click Here: cheap warriors rugby jersey

Click:gold loan Auckland
On pourrait croire que tout a été dit et fait dans le genre film de guerre, Fury prouve qu’il n’en est rien. Avec cette histoire d’un équipage d’un tank américain, il permet surtout de découvrir une autre facette de la Seconde guerre mondiale, en pleine Allemagne, juste avant que le pays ne capitule.

«Les idéaux sont pacifiques, la guerre est violente» dit le personnage de Brad Pitt. Fury le rappelle et de quelle manière! L’histoire suit en 1945 à travers le regard effrayé d’un dactylo propulsé co-pilote, les missions d’un char américain au beau milieu d’une Allemagne en désolation mais qui refuse de se rendre. Pire: les SS obligent même les femmes et les enfants à combattre les Alliés qui progressent sur leur territoire. Ceux qui refusent sont pendus ou exécutés.

Fury pose un regard sans concession sur le conflit et plus généralement sur la barbarie d’une guerre et des hommes qui s’y battent, souvent contre leur gré.

Sans tomber dans le manichéisme propre au genre, ce film épique et éprouvant offrent de beaux moments de bravoure, mais aussi certaines respirations qui permettent de garder foi en l’humanité.

Brad Pitt est une fois de plus impeccable en gradé responsable de son char et de son équipage. Il compose un personnage tout en nuances. Face à lui Shia LaBoeouf confirme un indéniable talent devant la caméra, dommage que sa personnalité en dehors déteigne sur l’image qu’on se fait de cet acteur incroyablement doué.

De David Ayer, avec Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michel Pena… 2h14

Crédits photos : Giles Keyte

Click Here: nrl shops

Dans la soirée de lundi à mardi, le champion du monde 1998 a été victime d’un malaise vagal. Selon les informations de confrères de l’Equipe, l’ancien gardien de but aurait déjà regagné son domicile.

Le dernier semestre 2014 est à oublier pour Fabien Barthez. Après avoir vu son club de Luzenac (il était directeur général du club ariégeois) rétrogradé en 7e division, l’ancien footballeur s’est fait une petite frayeur quant à son état de santé.

«Dans la soirée de lundi, Fabien Barthez (43 ans) a été victime d’un malaise vagal, indique l’Equipe.fr. Le champion du monde 1998 a ensuite été placé sous contrôle médical à l’hôpital pour quelques examens avant de ressortir dans la nuit pour rejoindre son domicile.»

Quelques heures avant son hospitalisation, Fabien Barthez avait soutenu son ami Zinédine Zidane, suspendu trois mois du banc de touche de la réserve du Real Madrid. «Ceux qui prennnent ces décisions n’ont jamais mis les pieds sur un terrain. Ils font ça pour détruire», avait commenté l’ancien gardien de but des Bleus auprès de nos confrères de l’Equipe.

Dans une interview à La Depêche fin septembre, Fabien Barthez (qui a raccroché les crampons il y a huit ans) s’était confié sur son état d’esprit du moment. «Je n’ai jamais fait de plan de carrière, j’ai toujours vécu au jour le jour, expliquait-il. C’est la même chose en sport auto (il a notamment participé aux dernières 24 Heures du Mans). En revanche, je pense que je resterai un footballeur dans l’âme.»

Click Here: State of Origin Jerseys

Il réclamait dix millions d’euros, mais sera finalement obligé de verser un euro symbolique à Dior. John Galliano n’a pas été entendu par les prud’hommes.

Depuis février 2011, John Galliano a vécu le pire, touché le fond, puis donné un coup de pied salvateur pour remonter à la surface. Directeur artistique de la maison Dior pendant quinze ans, le workaholic n’était pas devenu qu’accro à son travail et s’offrait chaque jour un cocktail détonnant à base de médicaments et d’alcool. Sa vie a basculé à la terrasse du café La Perle dans le Marais, lorsqu’il a été immortalisé proférant des injures antisémites. Filmé, le créateur n’a pu que constaté le dérapage et s’est vu immédiatement sanctionné par sa maison mère, Dior. Si dans un premier temps le truculent ponte de la fashion sphère a fait profil bas, depuis il a revu ses priorités et réclamé à Dior la coquette somme de dix millions d’euros.

Alors qu’il contestait son licenciement, le conseil des prud’hommes de Paris a débouté John Galliano. Plus encore, il se voit obligé de verser un euro symbolique à Dior ainsi qu’à la marque filiale du groupe, John Galliano. Le designer british réclamait la nullité de son licenciement ce qui aurait entrainé le versement rétroactif de ses salaires, soit dix millions d’euros. Son avocate Me Chantal Giraud-Van Gaver a fait part de son «immense déception», alors que la défense de Dior se voit conforter dans son choix. «Nous l’avons licencié pour une faute grave, caractérisée, et le conseil des prud’hommes en le déboutant nous a confortés dans le bien-fondé de notre décision», explique Me Néret, l’avocat de Dior.

Pour Me Giraud, Dior aurait dû se préoccuper de l’état de santé de son client: «in fine, les choses sont arrivées parce que Dior n’a pas pris en considération l’état de santé (de Galliano) qui s’est largement dégradé avec la charge de travail qui n’a fait que s’alourdir». Après avoir suivi une cure de désintox aux États-Unis, réalisé la robe de mariée de Kate Moss en catimini, John Galliano, trois ans après le Galliano Gate, s’est racheté une conduite en même temps qu’une santé. Une parenthèse pour enfin faire face à ses démons – revenir notamment sur son père tyrannique, comme il le révélait dans Vanity Fair en juin dernier -, trouver les mots pour s’excuser publiquement, et retrouver sa place de génie créateur de la planète mode. Car à défaut de revenir chez Dior, John Galliano a repris du service dans la maison confidentielle Martin Margiela. A suivre.

Click Here: Cheap Golf Golf Clubs