He sees such initiatives as an essential element in building local support for nature conservation in a country where it normally takes a poor second place to making money.”If we can show the authorities here that the environment and development can work together, the benefits for the whole of China and its wildlife could be huge,” says Li. The underlying message is that the giant panda must pay its way in the local economy. But the lesson of Wolong is that, if wrongly handled, tourism holds the potential to be the final nail in the giant panda’s coffin One day, the pandas may not just be hiding They may be extinct.. Fresh from intervening to save the Conservative Party, Sir John Paul Getty is about to rescue another ageing institution in trouble. Fresh from intervening to save the Conservative Party, Sir John Paul Getty is about to rescue another ageing institution in trouble.
The billionaire oil tycoon is putting together a deal to buy The Oldie magazine, which has struggled to break even despite a loyal readership of senior citizens.Sir Paul’s bid, with the former magazine publisher John Brown, follows his donation of £5m to the Tories, given because he feels the party is the best hope of defending the British way of life.The Oldie, founded in 1993, was put up for sale by its publisher, Naim Attallah, last November but rumours of closure grew as no buyers appeared.Under the deal proposed by Sir Paul, he will inject £500,000, and Mr Brown, who last month sold his magazine group, which includes Viz, to the former Loaded editor James Brown, will become The Oldie’s publisher They will both get a controlling stake in the company. Richard Ingrams would stay on as editor.The deal is likely to be confirmed by the end of July, and John Brown said: “If it all goes through it will certainly save The Oldie.

It’s up to us and The Oldie to make it work.”Mr Attallah, 70, said: “I’m pleased to say that negotiations are in progress and I will be delighted if everything goes well. Paul Getty loves The Oldie.”While welcoming the billionaire’s largesse, he rejected suggestions that the magazine was in as much need of help as the Conservative Party.”Don’t compare us to the Tories. We may be ageing but I would hope we are much more active,” he said.. A television journalist capped a libel victory against The Sunday Times in the so-called “Ulster death squads” case when he won a costs order yesterday expected to land the newspaper with a legal bill totalling £2m. A television journalist capped a libel victory against The Sunday Times in the so-called “Ulster death squads” case when he won a costs order yesterday expected to land the newspaper with a legal bill totalling £2m.
The Sunday Times’s liability for lawyers’ services arising from the case is thought to be among the highest ever faced by a newspaper.The Court of Appeal in London ordered that part of the costs which the newspaper must pay Sean McPhilemy to cover his costs for the libel action andThe Sunday Times’s unsuccessful appeal, must be calculated under the draconian “indemnity” principle. An indemnity costs order means that, when a winning party’s costs are assessed, nearly all the fees and charges are allowed.

This differs from the normal procedure, under which certain claims are struck out in the settlement.Yesterday’s ruling saddles the newspaper with having to pay Mr McPhilemy up to £870,000 costs, in addition to the £145,000 damages he won last year. The newspaper’s own costs are thought to be about £1m.Mr McPhilemy won the damages over allegations that he produced a “hoax” programme about high-level involvement in the murder of Catholics by Northern Ireland loyalist death squads.A London High Court jury decided that the newspaper had failed to prove “on the balance of probabilities” that the clandestine committee of murder conspirators featured in his 1991 Channel 4 programme for Dispatches, did not exist.In its appeal, The Sunday Times claimed the jury’s finding on that issue was “perverse and unreasonable”.But Lords Justices Simon Brown, John Chadwick and Andrew Longmore said the appeal ­ challenging the jurors decision on the ground that they gave “the wrong answer” ­ was an “abuse” of the court process.Two Northern Ireland businessmen received more than £700,000 in May after a libel action against Mr McPhilemy’s book on the same subject.. The domestic appliances manufacturer Dyson was found guilty yesterday of publishing misleading claims about the performance of its £1,200 “Contrarotator” washing machine. The domestic appliances manufacturer Dyson was found guilty yesterday of publishing misleading claims about the performance of its £1,200 “Contrarotator” washing machine.
The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that the company, founded by the British inventor James Dyson, wrongly claimed in an advertisement that the machine “outperformed the best washing machines”. The authority said the comparison was unfair because it measured the standard wash programmes of rival machines against the Contrarotator’s “heavy stains programme”.Dyson said it did not use the stain functions on the other two models because they were optional “add-ons” and it wanted to compare only the machines’ full-length wash cycles.