Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Star Wars and Cats: What is the first reaction?

The Star Wars crew (L to R): Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Naomi Ackie, Kelly Marie Tran, Anthony Daniels and Oscar Isaac 
Anticipated movies Cats and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker have received their world premieres and early reaction has been quick to drop.
The final film in the epic Star Wars trilogy had its debut screening in Hollywood, while the Cats premiere took place in New York.
One Twitter user described Cats, which stars Idris Elba and Rebel Wilson, as "bewildering... and magical".
Star Wars fans hailed The Rise of Skywalker as "a terrific finale".
Plot details for Star Wars have been kept tightly under wraps but director JJ Abrams has said the trio's characters - Rey, Finn and Poe - will be reunited on-screen, after dividing in 2017's The Last Jedi.
Heading the line-up at the Star Wars premiere were the film's young stars Daisy Ridley, who plays Rey, John Boyega, who is Finn, and Oscar Isaac, who plays Poe.
Mark Hamill delights fans at the premiere 

Star Wars veterans Mark Hamill, who plays Luke Skywalker, and Harrison Ford, who plays Han Solo, were also there to bid farewell to the movies that launched their careers in a venue made up as a futuristic hangar filled with life-size X-wing starfighters.
Anthony Daniels, who has played C-3PO in each of the main Star Wars movies, said the event felt "quite bewildering".
"In fact, it's such a big experience that I'm not sure I can quite cope with it. But I do feel proud to be here and proud to be part of it."
The Rise of Skywalker officially concludes the so-called "Skywalker saga" of films begun by George Lucas in 1977.
The film is set one year after its predecessor and, at 141 minutes, will be slightly shorter.
Formal press reviews have been embargoed until Wednesday but social media reaction from those inside the three Hollywood theatres used to hold Monday night's event was broadly positive.
"Epic. All of it," tweeted Erik Davis, managing editor of the Fandango movie website, calling the finale a "wonderful way to end the Skywalker story".
"It's amazing," wrote The Hollywood Reporter's Ryan Parker.


Variety's Adam B Vary tweeted: "There's so much movie in this movie."

"The emotional highs are spectacular, and there are a lot of payoffs (some earned, some not). But some choices feel like an unnecessary course-correct from The Last Jedi and some just plain don't make sense," said Laura Prudom of IGN.
Meanwhile sci-fi writer Jenna Buche de Noel declared she was "blown away".


Meanwhile, at New York's Lincoln Center, Cats stars including Taylor Swift, James Corden, Idris Elba and Rebel Wilson walked the red carpet on Monday night.
The movie is a big-screen version of Andrew Lloyd-Webber's hit stage musical. Formal reviews are embargoed until 19 December.
Elba - who plays the cat Macavity - was more than happy to give Variety some top tips on acting feline, which apparently includes a lot of "nuzzling" and "smelling".


Despite the all-star cast, which includes Dame Judi Dench, reaction to the trailer when it was released earlier this year didn't bode well for the finished film.
But the movie seemed to endear many early viewers, as the first reactions started to roll in on social media.
Broadway star Alan Henry called the movie "spectacular".


Idris Elba learned a lot from playing Macavity 

Variety's Caroline Framke was equally effusive, even if in a rather different way. 


Writer Ben Mekle declared Cats to be "magical".

However Rebecca Rubin, also of Variety, feared for her future slumber after seeing the movie. 


Cats is released in the UK and US on 20 December and fans of the stage version will be eagerly waiting for cinema doors to open, no doubt buoyed by Monday night's intriguing reaction.
The story, which was originally based on TS Eliot's Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats from 1939, is about deciding which of the cats will ascend to the Heaviside Layer - aka cat heaven.
The director said earlier this year that the story had a deeper message too that makes it relevant to human life in 2019.

Taylor Swift as the flirtatious Bombalurina 

"At the centre of this incredibly entertaining, comedic, fantastical musical is a very timely story about the importance for inclusion and redemption," said Tom Hooper, who also adapted another classic musical, Les Miserables, for the big screen in 2012.
As for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker - released on 19 December both here and across the pond - Disney boss Bob Iger told AFP at the premiere that fans would get "some kind of closure, some sense of satisfaction" for their favourite characters.
"Star Wars is probably the most important, most valuable mythology of our time, of the modern time," he said.
"If you just consider the global base of fans that have worshipped this storytelling since 1977, over 40 years... tonight being a culmination of nine films is an incredibly important night."
Tim Richards, CEO of Vue International cinemas in the UK, told BBC News he was expecting "one of the biggest weeks in years for cinema admissions".
"Most of our screens in the UK and Ireland will be playing late night sessions between Wednesday 18th and Thursday 19th, starting at 00:01, with a few cinemas like Manchester Printworks and Westfield London staying open all night for subsequent screenings into Thursday morning," he said regarding Star Wars.
And for Cats, Richards was also anticipating a good turnout: "Tom Hooper's amazing Cats has had huge pre-sales and looks like it will also be a huge hit, replicating its success on stage.
"Overall it looks like it's going to be another record-breaking year for big screen entertainment."

Giant prehistoric caiman had extra hip bone to carry its weight

Purussaurus mirandai's extra bone in the sacrum is marked in pink on this handout 
A prehistoric caiman, which weighed up to three tonnes, had an extra hip bone and upright shoulders to help it carry its weight on land, scientists say.
Purussaurus mirandai could grow up to 10m (32ft) in length and lived in the swamps and rivers of what is now Venezuela.
An international team of scientists says its extra vertebra and shoulder alignment meant it could move on land.
Their study was published in the online journal eLife
.
A handout shows the size of the caiman compared to a human 
The team, led by Dr Torsten Scheyer of the Palaeontological Institute and Museum of Zurich, studied fossils found in the badlands of Venezuela.
  • Prehistoric caiman's bite 'twice as strong' as T-Rex's
  • The day the dinosaurs' world fell apart
  • Stunning fossils record dinosaurs' demise
They found that the now-extinct giant caiman had an extra vertebra in its sacrum, the lower part of its spine. Its shoulder girdle was also aligned with the action of gravity, allowing it to better move its massive weight.
"Our findings are important because they help show how development can be altered in order to enable biomechanical changes as animals evolve into larger body sizes," Prof John Hutchinson of The Royal Veterinary College in London said.
Dr Schreyer said the discovery "broadens our knowledge of what animals can do in evolution".
"These old bones show us once again that the morphological variation seen in animals that are long extinct extends well beyond that of what is known in living animals," he said.
Purussaurus mirandai is the only crocodylian that has been found to have the extra vertebra in its sacrum, the scientists said.

DNA from Stone Age woman obtained 6,000 years on

An artist has made a reconstruction of the woman, who has been nicknamed "Lola" 
This is the face of a woman who lived 6,000 years ago in Scandinavia.
Thanks to the tooth marks she left in ancient "chewing gum", scientists were able to obtain DNA, which they used to decipher her genetic code.
This is the first time an entire ancient human genome has been extracted from anything other than human bone, said the researchers.
She likely had dark skin, dark brown hair and blue eyes.
Dr Hannes Schroeder from the University of Copenhagen said the "chewing gum" - actually tar from a tree - is a very valuable source of ancient DNA, especially for time periods where we have no human remains.
"It is amazing to have gotten a complete ancient human genome from anything other than bone,'' he said.

What do we know about her?

The woman's entire genetic code, or genome, was decoded and used to work out what she might have looked like. She was genetically more closely related to hunter-gatherers from mainland Europe than to those who lived in central Scandinavia at the time, and, like them, had dark skin, dark brown hair and blue eyes.
She was likely descended from a population of settlers that moved up from western Europe after the glaciers retreated.

How did she live?

Other traces of DNA gave clues to life at Syltholm on Lolland, an island of Denmark in the Baltic Sea. The DNA signatures of hazelnut and mallard duck were identified, showing these were part of the diet at the time.
"It is the biggest Stone Age site in Denmark and the archaeological finds suggest that the people who occupied the site were heavily exploiting wild resources well into the Neolithic, which is the period when farming and domesticated animals were first introduced into southern Scandinavia," said Theis Jensen from the University of Copenhagen.
The researchers also extracted DNA from microbes trapped in the "chewing gum". They found pathogens that cause glandular fever and pneumonia, as well as many other viruses and bacteria that are naturally present in the mouth, but don't cause disease. 

Piece of 5,700-year-old birch pitch from Syltholm, southern Denmark 

Where did the DNA come from?

The DNA was stuck in a black-brown lump of birch pitch, produced by heating birch bark, which was used at that time to glue together stone tools.
The presences of tooth marks suggest the substance was chewed, perhaps to make it more malleable, or possibly to relieve toothache or other ailments.
Researchers said the genomic information preserved in this way offers a snapshot of people's lives, providing information on ancestry, health and livelihood.
The research is published in the journal Nature Communications.

Whirlpool washing machine danger revealed as recall launched

Half a million washing machines in UK homes are to be recalled, plunging manufacturer Whirlpool into a fresh saga over dangerous appliances.
The machines, branded as Hotpoint or Indesit, were sold for more than five years, but their door locking system can overheat creating the risk of fire.
Owners face the prospect of doing without hot washes for months until products are fixed or replaced.
Whirlpool was already reeling after problems with fire-prone dryers.
It was heavily criticised for its initial response when more than five million tumble dryers, sold over 11 years, were found to be a fire danger. It only launched a full recall for that issue after four years, following an intervention by the regulator. This time it has gone straight to a recall.

What is the new problem?

Some, about 20%, of the Hotpoint and Indesit washing machines sold since 2014 are affected by the fault. Up to 519,000 washing machines sold in the UK are involved.
Seventy-nine fires are thought to have been caused by the fault which develops over time, according to Whirlpool, which owns the brands.
"When the heating element in the washing machine is activated, in very rare cases a component in the door lock system can overheat, which, depending on product features, can pose a risk of fire," Whirlpool said.
The extra current that runs through the machine when the heating element is on can cause the door locking system to overheat.
The company said the issue had been identified by its safety team, but had led to fires, although none had been significant enough to cause more than minor damage or cause any serious injuries.

What should I do if I think I own one?

Whirlpool has set up a model checker online, although this itself appears to have crashed. Owners of Hotpoint and Indesit washing machines bought since October 2014 will need to enter the model and serial number of their appliance - found inside the door or on the back - to see if it is one of those affected.
"We apologise to our customers for the technical issues they may be experiencing with our website. The issue is due to a third party system provider. We understand that it is not related to traffic to the website," Whirlpool said.
"The system provider is working to fix the issue as quickly as possible and the website should be back up shortly.
There is also a free helpline, open every day, available on 0800 316 1442, but this too was initially telling callers it was "unobtainable".
If owners eventually access these channels and find their machine is affected, to eliminate any risk, the appliance should be unplugged and not used until it repaired in their home by a trained engineer, Whirlpool said. As an alternative, those affected will also be offered a replacement with a safe model.
Owners can check and register for a repair or replacement now. Vulnerable customers will be prioritised, but for others it may be organised on a first come, first served basis.

When will affected machines be fixed or replaced?

The process will not begin until early January, at the earliest, and the company would not be drawn on when everyone's case will be dealt with.
As a result, it could be months, not just during Christmas, that owners will have to cope without their washing machine. The company is refusing to offer refunds for affected machines to allow people to buy another appliance straight away, leaving it open to further criticism.

Instead, Whirlpool suggested owners could still use the machine but with a vastly reduced risk, by only using the cold wash cycle at 20C or less. This means the heating element would not be activated, avoiding the problem that had been identified.
Jeff Noel, vice president of Whirlpool, said: "We know this will cause some concern. We especially understand that the washing machine is so important to family life, and in Christmas holiday season it will be even more of an important matter and, for that, we apologise."
He added that the firm's customer service department was being built up, engineers hired, and delivery and collection capability stepped up for the January start.
The recall only affects UK and Ireland homes at the moment. The products were manufactured in Turkey and Poland.

Is this connected to the recall of Hotpoint and Indesit tumble dryers?

Whirlpool has been embroiled in a four-year scandal over tumble dryer safety. Dangerous appliances under the Hotpoint, Indesit, Creda, Swan and Proline brands were sold in the UK for 11 years from 2004.
The damage caused by a dryer to a flat in Shepherd's Bush, London
 They were blamed for a spate of fires after a build up of fluff fell onto the machine's heating element. Whirlpool initially offered to modify affected dryers, only recently turning the offer into a full recall, with partial refund or replacement dryer.
The fire at Grenfell Tower started "in or around" a Hotpoint fridge-freezer in flat 16 on the fourth floor, the public inquiry into the tragedy has heard.
None of these three issues are connected, and Whirlpool said it was conducting the recall of up to 519,000 washing machines because safety was a priority.
Whirlpool has told the regulator, the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), about the problem and its recall plans.

A bumpy ride for Democrat backing impeachment

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (left) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (right) will be key players in Senate trial 
Donald Trump is expected to become only the third US president in history to be impeached on Wednesday for his actions with Ukraine. Some Democratic politicians' constituents are angry.
Swing state congresswoman Elissa Slotkin knew she was in for a bumpy ride ahead of her appearance in front of hundreds of Michigan constituents on Monday morning.
The Democrat, who last year was elected to represent a district that voted for Trump, had announced just hours earlier that she was coming out in favour of impeachment.
She'd gone home to her farm in Holly at the weekend and sat at her desk with coffee and papers to weigh up the evidence in front of her. It was clear, the former CIA analyst decided, that the president's actions had crossed the threshold and that she was going to vote for the two articles of impeachment.
Now she had to stand up in front of 400 local residents to explain why.
Outside the town hall meeting at Oakland University, near Rochester, people were making their views loud and clear.
There was a stand-off between those who support her decision and Trump supporters who think she's in the wrong, and should be impeached herself.
Waiting to go into Ballroom A for the event, they stood on either side of the hallway with their placards ("Impeach Slotkin, keep Trump" one read), exchanging chants. Some tried covering up pro-Slotkin signs with their own, leading to a minor tussle by a Christmas tree.
Inside the ballroom, there was a chorus of loud boos competing with cheers the moment the congresswoman stood up. The meeting organiser asked for everyone to respect each other, but that didn't stop the yelling.
"Hey hey, ho ho, Elissa Slotkin's got to go!" came the chants from one corner of the ballroom, peppered with "four more years!" and "MAGA!". One man stood with his back turned to the congresswoman for most of the hour-long event.
"I'm glad to see so much enthusiasm for civic engagement," she began. 
There was a confrontation between a man holding a sign condemning white supremacy and a woman supporting Trump 

As she set out to explain her reasoning, sometimes the shouts threatened to drown her out. "Let's have a civil conversation," she said at one point. "I'm going to continue - I have the microphone."
When she came on to the subject of impeachment, she was greeted with a standing ovation.
What was different in this case, says the congresswoman, was that the president in his phone call to the Ukrainian president at the heart of the allegations against him, decided to act for his own personal gain "and not in the interests of the United States".
"Short of declaring war, this is one of the biggest decisions I will be voting on in my short time in Congress. I take it very seriously."
There were yells of "you're not fooling anybody" as she continued: "Whether you agree with me or not, I have attempted in all I can to be transparent. For me, this is an issue of principle."
She said she's aware that her stance could lose her her seat in the 2020 elections.
"I know, and I can hear, that this is a very controversial decision.
"The thing that's different for me is this very basic idea that the president of the United States would reach out to a foreign power and ask for an investigation for personal political gain.
"While you may not agree, I hope you believe me when I tell you I made this decision out of principle and out of a duty to protect and defend the constitution. I feel that in my bones.
"And I will stick to that regardless of what it does to me politically because this is bigger than politics." 
There were other issues she covered - Medicaid, gun violence, the military - but impeachment overshadowed them all in the week of the defining vote.
A number of questions were read off cards. The first few covered impeachment ("these are the questions you're shouting, so you may just want to listen", Ms Slotkin called out to the protesters) - why it was wrong for the president to investigate alleged corruption, and why the matter could not just be solved at the ballot box in November's election.
"For me, honestly, this is why I was not supportive of impeachment for many months. I thought the election should take care of it. Then the facts came out."
Those facts, she says, are that the president was seeking to influence the 2020 election. And if that is the case, what's to stop a future president - Democrat or Republican - seeking favours from foreign allies in years to come?
She had announced her decision in a newspaper op-ed - the same manner in which she and a group of other new congresswomen and men had voiced their support for an inquiry into impeachment, back in September. 
Writing in the Detroit Free Press on Monday, she said she had read reports, looked back over the details of the impeachments of presidents Nixon and Clinton and the US Constitution itself.
"As a former CIA officer, I believe this lies at the very heart of impeachable conduct," she wrote.
"To my colleagues and constituents considering this vote I think it is important to ask - should we invite foreign help into our competitive political system?"
Rachel Goodavish, 29, has come to the town hall with two-year-old daughter Charlotte - who happily watches videos and ignores the shouting.
"I thought it was important for her to see this, to get involved," her mum says. "How things turn out is going to affect her.
"I wanted to show support for Elissa Slotkin because I knew a lot of Trump supporters were turning up. I'm really glad about her decision. I was a little nervous, so now I'm relieved.
"Like she said, if you let this go, it sets the precedent for future elections. Even if he's acquitted, it shows she won't put up with it."
But others were not convinced. Nancy Tiseo said: "Her ideas are not our ideas. She doesn't have conservative ideas. She's voting to impeach the president we elected and love." 
There was a media scrum to hear Ms Slotkin speak

Jo Golda, 65, who runs a cleaning business, agreed, saying President Trump had done such a good job at increasing employment, that it's now difficult to find people to hire.
"We are big Trump supporters and she has gone against everything we voted him in for," she said. "This man has done incredible things for our economy, and she wants to impeach him? No way. I'm very upset, very upset.
"She's meant to go with what we want, not with 'her heart'. There is no reason to impeach him."
Paul Junge, who is planning to stand against Ms Slotkin next year, said he wants to make her a one-term member of Congress.
"She is not focused on what the 8th District want" he said. "They want a focus on jobs, the economy and healthcare."
Jo Golda, Paul Junge and Nancy Tiseo 
Not all Republicans were against Ms Slotkin, however.
Roy Goldsberry said: "I support her decision - and I say that as a Republican. I'm a rare breed.
"I don't believe the president is acting in the country's interests. I think he's acting in his own personal interests." 
Nancy Strole has a badge proclaiming she's a Republican for Slotkin and she says she'd have supported whatever decision the congresswoman made.
"I am so proud of her. I have a Republican background, but I'm putting country over party," she said. "And she doesn't tell different people different things. She's straightforward."
Bill Rauwerdik, one of those loudly protesting, said he had been doing so because Democrats weren't used to "vocal conservatives showing up" and that it was "nothing compared to the disruption Republicans face".
Peter Trumbore, head of the university's political science department, said: "If you scanned the room, what you saw was about a dozen very loud Trump supporters interested in disrupting the event.
"But there were over 400 people who were - if not all supportive - then deciding to listen. It shows it's a swing district. It did seem a supportive audience, for the most part, with a handful of people trying to drown the speaker out." 
Ms Slotkin, speaking to reporters, later says she had not been lobbied by Democrats - though she spoke to people on both sides - and had not felt under any pressure to make her decision.
"Of course there were protesters in the back corner," she said after the event. "But from my vantage point, there were a room of people with different opinions. There were people sat in the middle wearing Trump hats who clearly didn't agree with me. But they were listening. They weren't shouting. The most I can hope for is engaged constituents."
Judging by the town hall, and the strength of feeling displayed, she has no shortage of those.
She will just have to wait 11 months to find out whether they re-elect her and what impact her decision, made at her Michigan farm, will have on her political future. 

Brexit bill to rule out extension to transition period

Simon Hart said he had been given an amazing opportunity 
The government is to add a new clause to the Brexit bill to rule out any extension to the transition period beyond the end of next year.
The post-Brexit transition period - due to conclude in December 2020 -  can currently be extended by mutual agreement for up to two years.
But an amended Withdrawal Agreement Bill the Commons is set to vote on this week would rule out any extension.
Critics say this raises the chance of leaving the EU without a trade deal.
The UK is set to leave the EU on 31 January, more than three and a half years after the public backed Brexit in a referendum.
Soon after, the two sides will begin talking about their future economic relationship, including controversial areas such as fishing rights, consumer and environmental standards and financial services.
Trade deals typically takes many years to conclude but senior Cabinet Minister Michael Gove insisted both the UK and the EU were "committed" to reaching an agreement by the end of 2020 in order to avoid disruption to business.
  • All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU
  • Could the UK and EU sort a trade deal in months?
  • What does 'Get Brexit done' mean?
  • What the election fall-out means for the BBC
  • Who's in Boris Johnson's cabinet?
He also promised Parliament would be able to scrutinise the Withdrawal Agreement Bill "in depth".
Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said the move was "reckless and irresponsible" and he argued that Prime Minister Boris Johnson was "prepared to put people's jobs at risk".
Liberal Democrat interim leader Sir Ed Davey said: "The only way Johnson can meet the December 2020 timetable is by giving up all his previous promises to Leave voters and agreeing to all the demands of the EU."
Downing Street has said the government plans to ask the new Parliament to have its first debate and vote on the withdrawal agreement - the legislation needed to ratify Brexit - on Friday.
With a majority of 80 following Thursday's general election, Mr Johnson is expected to get the bill into law with few changes in time for the UK to end its EU membership on 31 January.

'Cautious'

The government will then have until the end of the transition period on 31 December to negotiate a free trade agreement with Brussels before the trade relationship defaults to World Trade Organization (WTO) terms.
Senior EU figures, including the bloc's chief negotiator Michel Barnier, are sceptical that a deal can be agreed within that time.
Mairead McGuinness, the Irish politician who is First Vice-President of the European Parliament, said the fact the UK was looking to diverge from EU rules and standards in some areas, rather than move closer, would make the process "more complicated".
"We're all a bit cautious about whether it can effectively be completed within an 11-month period," she told BBC Radio 4's World at One. 
So, the government is going to pass a law to stop itself doing something that it had already promised not to do.
On the surface, that doesn't change much.
Because the decision on whether to extend the transition period lies with the prime minister anyway, not with Parliament.
And with his new majority, Mr Johnson knows his critics can't do anything to force his hand.
But as a statement of intent, this announcement is important.
By reaffirming Mr Johnson's guarantee that the transition period will not be extended, it suggests there will only be enough time to agree a pretty basic trade deal which would leave many important issues unresolved.
That means a quick 'zero tariffs zero quotas' deal on goods could be done, as long as the UK is prepared to sign up to the EU's main conditions.
They include the UK sticking with EU rules on environmental and social policy, and on state aid for companies.
Such an agreement wouldn't get rid of all border checks, though, and it wouldn't do anything for the services sector.
The PM could of course change his mind again - he's done that before.
But this is also a warning for businesses - they could be in for a bit of a bumpy ride at the end of next year. 
As well as ruling out an extension, the Independent reports that the amended withdrawal agreement may omit previous "provisions to ensure that workers' rights were not weakened after Brexit".
Mr Gove said workers' rights would be "safeguarded" in separate legislation, adding that the government wanted to make sure the Withdrawal Agreement Bill passes through Parliament "cleanly and clearly".
But shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the government would "sacrifice our basic rights and certainty for business at the altar of turning the UK into a Trump-supporting tax haven".
And Labour's Barry Gardiner said his party would be less likely to support the bill if clauses on workers' rights and the environment were removed. 
Currently, if trade talks are progressing more slowly the UK and EU could agree - by July - to extend the post-Brexit transition period by one or two years.
But on Friday, the prime minister intends to expunge this clause from his Withdrawal Agreement Bill, and instead explicitly rule out any extension.
This is designed to underline to those Leave voters who have backed his party for the first time that he is determined to deliver Brexit - and he wants to quash speculation that he would be prepared to go for a deal that keeps the UK in close step with Brussels.
Government sources say that having a hard deadline will also focus the minds of both sets of negotiators on achieving a deal.
With Labour losing swathes of seats in their heartlands, Boris Johnson will claim that the opposition haven't learned any lessons if they vote against his Brexit legislation.
The prime minister promised during the general election campaign that he would not seek an extension to the transition period - persuading Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage to stand down candidates in Tory seats.
Sam Lowe, from the Centre for European Reform think tank, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Mr Johnson's move was "slightly performative" and its effect would be "largely domestic".
"It is a firmer deadline but of course there is still some flexibility," he said.
Mr Lowe said a December 2020 deadline could help the PM manage his own party when it comes to making concessions to the EU.

What will happen this week?

Tuesday
Proceedings begin when MPs gather for their first duty: to elect the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, who replaced John Bercow in November. Technically, MPs can hold a vote on this motion but this has never happened in practice.
Later in the day, the Speaker will begin the process of swearing in MPs, who are required to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown, or, if they object to this, a solemn affirmation. Those who speak or vote without having done so are deprived of their seat "as if they were dead" under the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866.
Two to three days are usually set aside for this process.
Thursday
The state opening of Parliament. The Queen's Speech is the centrepiece of this, when she will read a speech written by ministers setting out the government's programme of legislation for the parliamentary session. A couple of hours after the speech is delivered, MPs will begin debating its contents - a process which usually takes days.
Friday
Depending on how rapidly Boris Johnson wants to move, the debate on the Queen's Speech could continue into Friday.
The government will introduce the Withdrawal Agreement Bill to Parliament.
MPs in the previous Parliament backed Mr Johnson's bill at its first stage but rejected his plan to fast-track the legislation through Parliament in three days in order to leave the EU by the then Brexit deadline of 31 October.
After the debate on the Queen's Speech is concluded, MPs will vote on whether to approve it. Not since 1924 has a government's Queen Speech been defeated. 


Pervez Musharraf: Pakistan ex-leader sentenced to death for treason

General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's former military leader, has been sentenced to death at a special court hearing in Islamabad.
The three-member court sentenced him over a high treason charge that has been pending since 2013.
Gen Musharraf seized power in a military coup in 1999 and served as the country's president from 2001 to 2008.
He is currently in Dubai after being allowed to leave the country for medical treatment in 2016.
The charge relates to Gen Musharraf's suspension of the constitution in 2007, when he imposed emergency rule in a move intended to extend his tenure.
The 76-year-old issued a video statement from a hospital bed earlier this month, describing the case against him as "baseless".
Gen Musharraf is the first military ruler to ever stand trial in Pakistan for overruling the constitution.
The verdict was announced on Tuesday with a 2-1 majority.

What is the case about?

In November 2007, Gen Musharraf suspended the constitution and imposed emergency rule - a move which sparked protests. He resigned in 2008 to avoid the threat of impeachment.

Gen Musharraf resigned from office in 2008
 When Nawaz Sharif - an old rival whom he deposed in a coup in 1999 - was elected prime minister in 2013, he initiated a treason trial against Gen Musharraf and in March 2014 the former general was charged for high treason.
Gen Musharraf argued the case was politically motivated and that the actions he took in 2007 were agreed by the government and cabinet. But his arguments were turned down by the courts and he was accused of acting illegally.
According to the Pakistani constitution, anyone convicted of high treason could face the death penalty. Gen Musharraf travelled to Dubai in 2016 after a travel ban was lifted and he has refused to appear before the court, despite multiple orders. 

In a video, Gen Musharraf said he was not receiving a fair hearing 

The three-member bench had reserved its verdict in the long-running case last month, but was stopped from announcing it by a petition filed by the federal government to the Islamabad High Court.

Why is it significant?

The indictment of Gen Musharraf in 2014 for treason was a highly significant moment in a country where the military has held sway for much of its independent history.
Gen Musharraf is known internationally for his support of the US "war on terror" 

Many of Pakistan's army chiefs have either ruled the country directly after coups, as Gen Musharraf did, or wielded significant influence over policymaking during periods of civilian rule.
But Gen Musharraf was the first army chief to be charged with such a crime and the powerful military will have watched the case carefully.
Analysts say the institution is deeply aware that how the case proceeds could set a precedent. 
Many expect the judgement to be delayed by an appeal by Gen Musharraf's lawyers and it unclear if a request to have him returned would be successful as there is no formal extradition treaty between Pakistan and the UAE, the BBC's M Ilyas Khan reports.

Who is Gen Musharraf?

He was appointed to lead the Pakistani army in 1998.
The army's involvement in the Kargil conflict in May 1999 caused a major rift between him and then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and the army general seized power in a coup in 1999. 
Pervez Musharraf At a glance
  • 1943 Born in Delhi, India
  • 1961 Joins Pakistan Military Academy
  • 1999 Leads bloodless coup and becomes president two years later
  • 2007 Loses power
  • 2008 Goes into self-imposed exile - returns from 2013 to 2016
  • 2014 Charged with high treason
Serving as president until 2008, Gen Musharraf survived numerous assassination attempts and plots against him during his time in power.
He is best known internationally for his role in the US "war on terror", which he supported after the 9/11 attacks despite domestic opposition.
Gen Musharraf left the country after relinquishing the presidency in 2008, but returned in 2013 to contest the general elections, when he was barred from standing by the courts and was embroiled in several cases - including over the assassination of former PM Benazir Bhutto.
He appeared only twice in hearings for treason and earlier spent time at an army health facility or on his farm in Islamabad. He subsequently moved to Karachi in April 2014, where he lived until his departure two years later.

The man who helped make ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin a president

Mr Putin, seen here at the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow in 2019, is a former KGB officer
Through the ages, Russian rulers have gained power in different ways.
For tsars it was by birth; Vladimir Lenin through revolution; general secretaries of the Soviet Communist Party by climbing up the party ladder to the politburo and awaiting their turn for the top job.
But 20 years ago, Vladimir Putin was handed power on a Kremlin plate. The former officer of the KGB - the Soviet security service - was handpicked by President Boris Yeltsin and his inner circle to lead Russia into the 21st Century.
But why Mr Putin?

The 'brilliant deputy'

Valentin Yumashev played a key role in Vladimir Putin becoming president of Russia. The former journalist turned Kremlin official rarely gives interviews, but he agreed to meet me and tell his story.
Mr Yumashev was one of Boris Yeltsin's most trusted aides - he went on to marry Mr Yeltsin's daughter, Tatyana. As Mr Yeltsin's chief of staff, in 1997 he gave Mr Putin his first job in the Kremlin.
"Yeltsin's outgoing administration chief, Anatoly Chubais, told me he knew a strong manager who'd make a good deputy for me," Mr Yumashev recalls.
"He introduced me to Vladimir Putin and we began working together. I noticed immediately Putin's fantastic work. He was brilliant at formulating ideas, at analysing and arguing his case."
Was there a moment, I ask, when you thought this man could be president?
"Yeltsin had several candidates in mind, like Boris Nemtsov, Sergei Stepashin and Nikolai Aksenenko. Yeltsin and I talked a lot about possible successors. At one point we discussed Putin.
"Yeltsin asked me: 'What do you think about Putin?' I think he's a superb candidate, I replied. I think you should consider him. It's clear from the way he does his job that he's ready for more difficult tasks."
Did Putin's KGB past put him off?
"A lot of KGB agents, like Putin, had left the organisation, realising it was discredited. The fact that he was ex-KGB meant nothing. Putin had shown himself to be a liberal and a democrat, who wanted to continue market reforms."

The secret succession

In August 1999, Boris Yeltsin appointed Vladimir Putin prime minister. It was a clear sign that President Yeltsin was preparing Mr Putin for the Kremlin.
Mr Yeltsin was not due to leave office for another year, but in December 1999 he took the surprise decision to go early.
"Three days before New Year, Yeltsin summoned Putin to his country residence. He asked me to be present, and his new chief of staff, Alexander Voloshin. He told Putin that he wouldn't hang around until July. He'd resign on 31 December.
"Only a tiny group of people knew: me, Voloshin, Putin and Yeltsin's daughter Tatyana. Yeltsin didn't even tell his wife."
  • Vladimir Putin: 20 years in 20 photos
Mr Yumashev was entrusted with writing Yeltsin's resignation speech.
"It was a hard speech to write. It was clear the text would go down in history. The message was important. That's why I wrote the famous line 'Forgive me'.
"Russians had suffered such shock and stress during the 1990s. Yeltsin had to speak about this."
On New Year's Eve 1999, Boris Yeltsin recorded his final TV address in the Kremlin.
"It came as a shock to everyone present. Except me, who'd written the speech. People burst into tears. It was an emotional moment.
"But it was important that the news didn't leak. There were still four hours before the official announcement. So, all the people in the room were locked in. They weren't allowed to leave. I took the tape and drove to the TV station. The speech was broadcast at midday."
Vladimir Putin became acting president. Three months later, he won the election.

A member of 'The Family'?

Valentin Yumashev is often referred to as a member of "The Family": Boris Yeltsin's inner circle that, allegedly, exerted influence over him towards the end of the 1990s.
Mr Yumashev dismisses "The Family" as "a myth, an invention".
But there's little doubt that during the 1990s, with President Yeltsin in failing health, the Kremlin leader placed his trust, increasingly, in a narrow circle of relatives, friends and business figures.

Boris Yeltsin (L) and Mr Putin at a Victory Day parade in Moscow's Red Square in May 2000 

"Putin's entourage doesn't exert influence like this," explains political scientist Valery Solovei.
"There are two categories of people Putin leans towards: childhood friends, like the Rotenberg brothers and those who served in the Soviet KGB.
"But he doesn't overestimate their loyalty. Yeltsin trusted members of his family. Putin trusts no-one."

'No regrets - Russians trust Putin'

Mr Putin has remained in power, as president or prime minister, for 20 years. In that time, he has built a system of power that revolves around him. Under his watch, Russia has become an increasingly authoritarian state, with fewer democratic rights and freedoms.
"Yeltsin believed he had a mission, and so does Putin," Mr Solovei says. "Yeltsin saw himself as Moses: he wanted to lead his country out of its communist slavery.
"Putin's mission is to return to the past. He wants to avenge what he calls 'the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th Century', the fall of the USSR. He and his entourage, former KGB officers, believe the destruction of the Soviet Union was the work of Western intelligence services."
  • Russia's action man president
The Vladimir Putin of today is barely recognisable from the liberal figure Mr Yumashev remembers. So, does Mr Putin's former boss regret giving him a job?
"I have no regrets," Mr Yumashev tells me, adding: "It's clear that Russians still trust Putin."
Still, Mr Yumashev thinks that Boris Yeltsin's resignation should serve as a lesson to all Russian presidents, the lesson being "that it's very important to step down and make way for younger people. For Yeltsin this was incredibly important."

Pope lifts 'pontifical secret' rule over sex abuse

Pope Francis has been under pressure to address the sexual abuse crisis faced by the Church over recent years 
Pope Francis has made changes to the way the Roman Catholic Church deals with cases of the sexual abuse of minors, by abolishing the rule of "pontifical secrecy" that covers them.
New papal documents lift the obligation of silence on those who report abuse or say they have been victims.
Church leaders called for the rule's abolition at a February Vatican summit.
Information in abuse cases should still be treated with "security, integrity and confidentiality", the Pope said.
He instructed Vatican officials to comply with civil laws and assist civil judicial authorities in investigating such cases.
The Pope has also changed the Vatican's definition of child pornography, increasing the age of the subject from 14 or under to 18 or under.
Archbishop of Malta Charles Scicluna called the move an "epochal decision that removes obstacles and impediments", telling Vatican news that "the question of transparency now is being implemented at the highest level".
The Church has been rocked by thousands of reports of sexual abuse by priests and accusations of cover-ups by senior clergy around the world.
Pope Francis has been under serious pressure to provide leadership and generate workable solutions to the crisis which has engulfed the Church over recent years.
Pontifical secrecy is a rule of confidentiality which protects sensitive information regarding the governance of the Church, similar to the "classified" or "confidential" status used in companies or civil governments, the Catholic news agency says.
In the new instruction, Pope Francis said the pontifical secret would also no longer bind those working in offices of the Roman Curia to confidentiality on other offences if committed in conjunction with child abuse or child pornography.
Witnesses, alleged victims, and the person who files the report are also not bound to obligations of silence, the agency says.
Pope Benedict XVI had decreed in 2001 that these cases must be dealt with under "pontifical secret", the highest form of secrecy in the Church, the Associated Press news agency reports.
The Vatican had long insisted that such confidentiality was necessary to protect the privacy of the victim, the reputation of the accused and the integrity of the canonical process, it adds.
On his 83rd birthday, Pope Francis has responded to a long-standing complaint from survivors by announcing that any testimony gathered by the Church in relation to cases of sexual violence, the abuse of minors and child pornography will now be made available to state authorities.
In the past, the Church has been accused of using secrecy laws as a justification for not reporting cases of abuse. The consequence of breaching the pontifical secret was excommunication from the Church, so there was little incentive to be open to state authorities. That prohibition has now been abolished.
It is the latest attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to address the scourge of clerical abuse that has manifested itself across continents and in a range of religious institutions.
The Pope's troubleshooter on sexual abuse, Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta, has added to Tuesday's announcement saying that if it receives a specific request from a state authority, then the Church will now co-operate. 

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)