Entertailment Page

Entertainment



👁 :115
WHY BE POOR?
Catagory:Reading
Author:Henry Ford Samuel Crowther
Posted Date:02/04/2025
Posted By:utopia online

Poverty springs from a number of sources, the more important of which are controllable. So does special privilege. I think it is entirely feasible to abolish both poverty and special privilege—and there can be no question but that their abolition is desirable. Both are unnatural, but it is work, not law, to which we must look for results. By poverty I mean the lack of reasonably sufficient food, housing, and clothing for an individual or a family. There will have to be differences in the grades of sustenance. Men are not equal in mentality or in physique. Any plan which starts with the assumption that men are or ought to be equal is unnatural and therefore unworkable. There can be no feasible or desirable process of leveling down. Such a course only promotes poverty by making it universal instead of exceptional. Forcing the efficient producer to become inefficient does not make the inefficient producer more efficient. Poverty can be done away with only by plenty, and we have now gone far enough along in the science of production to be able to see, as a natural development, the day when production and distribution will be so scientific that all may have according to ability and industry. The extreme Socialists went wide of the mark in their reasoning that industry would inevitably crush the worker. Modern industry is gradually lifting the worker and the world. We only need to know more about planning and methods. The best results can and will be brought about by individual initiative and ingenuity—by intelligent individual leadership. The government, because it is essentially negative, cannot give positive aid to any really constructive programme. It can give negative aid—by removing obstructions to progress and by ceasing to be a burden upon the community. The underlying causes of poverty, as I can see them, are essentially due to the bad adjustment between production and distribution, in both industry and agriculture—between the source of power and its application. The wastes due to lack of adjustment are stupendous. All of these wastes must fall before intelligent leadership consecrated to service. So long as leadership thinks more of money than it does of service, the wastes will continue. Waste is prevented by far-sighted not by short-sighted men. Short-sighted men think first of money. They cannot see waste. They think of service as altruistic instead of as the most practical thing in the world. They cannot get far enough away from the little things to see the big things—to see the biggest thing of all, which is that opportunist production from a purely money standpoint is the least profitable. Service can be based upon altruism, but that sort of service is not usually the best. The sentimental trips up the practical. It is not that the industrial enterprises are unable fairly to distribute a share of the wealth which they create. It is simply that the waste is so great that there is not a sufficient share for everyone engaged, notwithstanding the fact that the product is usually sold at so high a price as to restrict its fullest consumption. Take some of the wastes. Take the wastes of power. The Mississippi Valley is without coal. Through its centre pour many millions of potential horsepower—the Mississippi River. But if the people by its banks want power or heat they buy coal that has been hauled hundreds of miles and consequently has to be sold at far above its worth as heat or power. Or if they cannot afford to buy this expensive coal, they go out and cut down trees, thereby depriving themselves of one of the great conservers of water power. Until recently they never thought of the power at hand which, at next to nothing beyond the initial cost, could heat, light, cook, and work for the huge population which that valley is destined to support. The cure of poverty is not in personal economy but in better production. The "thrift" and "economy" ideas have been overworked. The word "economy" represents a fear. The great and tragic fact of waste is impressed on a mind by some circumstance, usually of a most materialistic kind. There comes a violent reaction against extravagance—the mind catches hold of the idea of "economy." But it only flies from a greater to a lesser evil; it does not make the full journey from error to truth. Economy is the rule of half-alive minds. There can be no doubt that it is better than waste; neither can there be any doubt that it is not as good as use. People who pride themselves on their economy take it as a virtue. But what is more pitiable than a poor, pinched mind spending the rich days and years clutching a few bits of metal? What can be fine about paring the necessities of life to the very quick? We all know "economical people" who seem to be niggardly even about the amount of air they breathe and the amount of appreciation they will allow themselves to give to anything. They shrivel—body and soul. Economy is waste: it is waste of the juices of life, the sap of living. For there are two kinds of waste—that of the prodigal who throws his substance away in riotous living, and that of the sluggard who allows his substance to rot from non-use. The rigid economizer is in danger of being classed with the sluggard. Extravagance is usually a reaction from suppression of expenditure. Economy is likely to be a reaction from extravagance. Everything was given us to use. There is no evil from which we suffer that did not come about through misuse. The worst sin we can commit against the things of our common life is to misuse them. "Misuse" is the wider term. We like to say "waste," but waste is only one phase of misuse. All waste is misuse; all misuse is waste. It is possible even to overemphasize the saving habit. It is proper and desirable that everyone have a margin; it is really wasteful not to have one—if you can have one. But it can be overdone. We teach children to save their money. As an attempt to counteract thoughtless and selfish expenditure, that has a value. But it is not positive; it does not lead the child out into the safe and useful avenues of self-expression or self-expenditure. To teach a child to invest and use is better than to teach him to save. Most men who are laboriously saving a few dollars would do better to invest those few dollars—first in themselves, and then in some useful work. Eventually they would have more to save. Young men ought to invest rather than save. They ought to invest in themselves to increase creative value; after they have taken themselves to the peak of usefulness, then will be time enough to think of laying aside, as a fixed policy, a certain substantial share of income. You are not "saving" when you prevent yourself from becoming more productive. You are really taking away from your ultimate capital; you are reducing the value of one of nature's investments. The principle of use is the true guide. Use is positive, active, life-giving. Use is alive. Use adds to the sum of good. Personal want may be avoided without changing the general condition. Wage increases, price increases, profit increases, other kinds of increases designed to bring more money here or money there, are only attempts of this or that class to get out of the fire—regardless of what may happen to everyone else. There is a foolish belief that if only the money can be gotten, somehow the storm can be weathered. Labour believes that if it can get more wages, it can weather the storm. Capital thinks that if it can get more profits, it can weather the storm. There is a pathetic faith in what money can do. Money is very useful in normal times, but money has no more value than the people put into it by production, and it can be so misused. It can be so superstitiously worshipped as a substitute for real wealth as to destroy its value altogether. The idea persists that there exists an essential conflict between industry and the farm. There is no such conflict. It is nonsense to say that because the cities are overcrowded everybody ought to go back to the farm. If everybody did so farming would soon decline as a satisfactory occupation. It is not more sensible for everyone to flock to the manufacturing towns. If the farms be deserted, of what use are manufacturers? A reciprocity can exist between farming and manufacturing. The manufacturer can give the farmer what he needs to be a good farmer, and the farmer and other producers of raw materials can give the manufacturer what he needs to be a good manufacturer. Then with transportation as a messenger, we shall have a stable and a sound system built on service. If we live in smaller communities where the tension of living is not so high, and where the products of the fields and gardens can be had without the interference of so many profiteers, there will be little poverty or unrest. Look at this whole matter of seasonal work. Take building as an example of a seasonal trade. What a waste of power it is to allow builders to hibernate through the winter, waiting for the building season to come around! And what an equal waste of skill it is to force experienced artisans who have gone into factories to escape the loss of the winter season to stay in the factory jobs through the building season because they are afraid they may not get their factory places back in the winter. What a waste this all-year system has been! If the farmer could get away from the shop to till his farm in the planting, growing, and harvesting seasons (they are only a small part of the year, after all), and if the builder could get away from the shop to ply his useful trade in its season, how much better they would be, and how much more smoothly the world would proceed. Suppose we all moved outdoors every spring and summer and lived the wholesome life of the outdoors for three or four months! We could not have "slack times." The farm has its dull season. That is the time for the farmer to come into the factory and help produce the things he needs to till the farm. The factory also has its dull season. That is the time for the workmen to go out to the land to help produce food. Thus we might take the slack out of work and restore the balance between the artificial and the natural. But not the least benefit would be the more balanced view of life we should thus obtain. The mixing of the arts is not only beneficial in a material way, but it makes for breadth of mind and fairness of judgment. A great deal of our unrest to-day is the result of narrow, prejudiced judgment. If our work were more diversified, if we saw more sides of life, if we saw how necessary was one factor to another, we should be more balanced. Every man is better for a period of work under the open sky. It is not at all impossible. What is desirable and right is never impossible. It would only mean a little teamwork—a little less attention to greedy ambition and a little more attention to life. Those who are rich find it desirable to go away for three or four months a year and dawdle in idleness around some fancy winter or summer resort. The rank and file of the American people would not waste their time that way even if they could. But they would provide the team-work necessary for an outdoor, seasonal employment. It is hardly possible to doubt that much of the unrest we see about us is the result of unnatural modes of life. Men who do the same thing continuously the year around and are shut away from the health of the sun and the spaciousness of the great out of doors are hardly to be blamed if they see matters in a distorted light. And that applies equally to the capitalist and the worker. What is there in life that should hamper normal and wholesome modes of living? And what is there in industry incompatible with all the arts receiving in their turn the attention of those qualified to serve in them? It may be objected that if the forces of industry were withdrawn from the shops every summer it would impede production. But we must look at the matter from a universal point of view. We must consider the increased energy of the industrial forces after three or four months in outdoor work. We must also consider the effect on the cost of living which would result from a general return to the fields. We have, as I indicated in a previous chapter, been working toward this combination of farm and factory and with entirely satisfactory results. At Northville, not far from Detroit, we have a little factory making valves. It is a little factory, but it makes a great many valves. Both the management and the mechanism of the plant are comparatively simple because it makes but one thing. We do not have to search for skilled employees. The skill is in the machine. The people of the countryside can work in the plant part of the time and on the farm part of the time, for mechanical farming is not very laborious. The plant power is derived from water. Another plant on a somewhat larger scale is in building at Flat Rock, about fifteen miles from Detroit. We have dammed the river. The dam also serves as a bridge for the Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railway, which was in need of a new bridge at that point, and a road for the public—all in one construction. We are going to make our glass at this point. The damming of the river gives sufficient water for the floating to us of most of our raw material. It also gives us our power through a hydroelectric plant. And, being well out in the midst of the farming country, there can be no possibility of crowding or any of the ills incident to too great a concentration of population. The men will have plots of ground or farms as well as their jobs in the factory, and these can be scattered over fifteen or twenty miles surrounding—for of course nowadays the workingman can come to the shop in an automobile. There we shall have the combination of agriculture and industrialism and the entire absence of all the evils of concentration. The belief that an industrial country has to concentrate its industries is not, in my opinion, well-founded. That is only a stage in industrial development. As we learn more about manufacturing and learn to make articles with interchangeable parts, then those parts can be made under the best possible conditions. And these best possible conditions, as far as the employees are concerned, are also the best possible conditions from the manufacturing standpoint. One could not put a great plant on a little stream. One can put a small plant on a little stream, and the combination of little plants, each making a single part, will make the whole cheaper than a vast factory would. There are exceptions, as where casting has to be done. In such case, as at River Rouge, we want to combine the making of the metal and the casting of it and also we want to use all of the waste power. This requires a large investment and a considerable force of men in one place. But such combinations are the exception rather than the rule, and there would not be enough of them seriously to interfere with the process of breaking down the concentration of industry. Industry will decentralize. There is no city that would be rebuilt as it is, were it destroyed—which fact is in itself a confession of our real estimate of our cities. The city had a place to fill, a work to do. Doubtless the country places would not have approximated their livableness had it not been for the cities. By crowding together, men have learned some secrets. They would never have learned them alone in the country. Sanitation, lighting, social organization—all these are products of men's experience in the city. But also every social ailment from which we to-day suffer originated and centres in the big cities. You will find the smaller communities living along in unison with the seasons, having neither extreme poverty nor wealth—none of the violent plagues of upheave and unrest which afflict our great populations. There is something about a city of a million people which is untamed and threatening. Thirty miles away, happy and contented villages read of the ravings of the city! A great city is really a helpless mass. Everything it uses is carried to it. Stop transport and the city stops. It lives off the shelves of stores. The shelves produce nothing. The city cannot feed, clothe, warm, or house itself. City conditions of work and living are so artificial that instincts sometimes rebel against their unnaturalness. And finally, the overhead expense of living or doing business in the great cities is becoming so large as to be unbearable. It places so great a tax upon life that there is no surplus over to live on. The politicians have found it easy to borrow money and they have borrowed to the limit. Within the last decade the expense of running every city in the country has tremendously increased. A good part of that expense is for interest upon money borrowed; the money has gone either into non-productive brick, stone, and mortar, or into necessities of city life, such as water supplies and sewage systems at far above a reasonable cost. The cost of maintaining these works, the cost of keeping in order great masses of people and traffic is greater than the advantages derived from community life. The modern city has been prodigal, it is to-day bankrupt, and to-morrow it will cease to be. The provision of a great amount of cheap and convenient power—not all at once, but as it may be used—will do more than anything else to bring about the balancing of life and the cutting of the waste which breeds poverty. There is no single source of power. It may be that generating electricity by a steam plant at the mine mouth will be the most economical method for one community. Hydro-electric power may be best for another community. But certainly in every community there ought to be a central station to furnish cheap power—it ought to be held as essential as a railway or a water supply. And we could have every great source of power harnessed and working for the common good were it not that the expense of obtaining capital stands in the way. I think that we shall have to revise some of our notions about capital. Capital that a business makes for itself, that is employed to expand the workman's opportunity and increase his comfort and prosperity, and that is used to give more and more men work, at the same time reducing the cost of service to the public—that sort of capital, even though it be under single control, is not a menace to humanity. It is a working surplus held in trust and daily use for the benefit of all. The holder of such capital can scarcely regard it as a personal reward. No man can view such a surplus as his own, for he did not create it alone. It is the joint product of his whole organization. The owner's idea may have released all the energy and direction, but certainly it did not supply all the energy and direction. Every workman was a partner in the creation. No business can possibly be considered only with reference to to-day and to the individuals engaged in it. It must have the means to carry on. The best wages ought to be paid. A proper living ought to be assured every participant in the business—no matter what his part. But, for the sake of that business's ability to support those who work in it, a surplus has to be held somewhere. The truly honest manufacturer holds his surplus profits in that trust. Ultimately it does not matter where this surplus be held nor who controls it; it is its use that matters. Capital that is not constantly creating more and better jobs is more useless than sand. Capital that is not constantly making conditions of daily labour better and the reward of daily labour more just, is not fulfilling its highest function. The highest use of capital is not to make more money, but to make money do more service for the betterment of life. Unless we in our industries are helping to solve the social problem, we are not doing our principal work. We are not fully serving.


Type:Event
👁 :3
Biden signs with Los Angeles talent agency
Catagory:News
Author:Samantha Granville BBC News, Los Angeles
Posted Date:02/04/2025
Posted By:utopia online

Former US President Joe Biden has signed with a Los Angeles talent agency - marking a significant step in shaping his post-presidency career. The signing marks a reunion with Creative Artists Agency (CAA), which previously represented him from 2017 to 2020. "President Biden is one of America's most respected and influential voices in national and global affairs," Richard Lovett, co-chair of CAA, said in a statement. "His lifelong commitment to public service is one of unity, optimism, dignity, and possibility," Mr Lovett said. "We are profoundly honored to partner with him again." The talent agency also has ties to former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama.Mr Biden, 82, has remained largely quiet about his plans following his five-decade career in public service, but when leaving the White House in January, he reassured supporters saying, "We're leaving office, we're not leaving the fight." With only two weeks having passed since his departure from office, there's no clear indication that he has a new book or project in the works.During his previous stint signed to the talent agency, he published his memoir, Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose in 2017. The book, which chronicled the loss of his eldest son, Beau, became a New York Times number one bestseller and inspired his American Promise book tour, widely seen as a stepping stone to his 2020 presidential bid. While keeping a relatively low profile, the former president has been spotted around his Delaware home and remains in contact with former aides and associates. He also recently became a great-grandfather, with the birth of his granddaughter, Naomi's son. Though CAA is usually tied with big movie stars and A-list celebrities, it's not uncommon for the agency to also work with politicians and social advocacy groups. The Obamas' partnership with CAA through their production company, Higher Ground has led to the creation of award-winning films and television shows, including the Oscar-winning documentary, American Factory. Additionally, former presidential nominee and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed with CAA to represent her book projects, including Hard Choices, which chronicled her tenure as America's top diplomat.


Type:Technology
👁 :2
Trump sows uncertainty - and Xi Jinping sees an opportunity
Catagory:News
Author:Laura Bicker China correspondent
Posted Date:02/04/2025
Posted By:utopia online

If China was angry at the United States for imposing an extra 10% tariff on all Chinese goods, it did a good job of hiding it. It urged Washington to start talks after repeated warnings that there would be no winners in a trade war. It held its fire until midnight in Washington - and then just as the tariffs on China kicked in, Beijing announced retaliatory tariffs of 10-15%, starting 10 February, on various US imports, including coal, crude oil and large cars. The Chinese government may have remained calm in the hope of doing a deal with Washington to avoid further tariffs - and to keep the relationship between the world's two largest economies from spiralling out of control. After all, US President Donald Trump agreed to reprieves with Canada and Mexico just hours before the tariffs on them took effect. Trump and China's President Xi Jinping are expected to talk this week. The US levy will sting - especially because it adds to a slew of tariffs Trump imposed in his first term on tens of billions of dollars of Chinese imports. And China's population is already concerned about their sluggish economy. Beijing and Washington have gone toe-to-toe on tariffs before. But a lot has changed since Trump 1.0. For one, the Chinese economy is not as reliant on the US as it was back in 2020. Beijing has strengthened its trade agreements across Africa, South America and South East Asia. It is now the largest trading partner of more than 120 countries. A deal could still be in the offing but the additional 10% may not offer the leverage that Trump wants, says Chong Ja Ian from Carnegie China.President Xi Jinping may also see a bigger opportunity here. Trump is sowing division in his own backyard, threatening to hit even the European Union (EU) with tariffs - all in his first month in office. His actions may have other US allies wondering what is in store for them. In contrast, China will want to appear a calm, stable and perhaps more attractive global trade partner. "Trump's America-first policy will bring challenges and threats to almost all countries in the world," says Yun Sun, director of the China programme at the Stimson Centre. "From the perspective of US-China strategic competition, a deterioration of US leadership and credibility will benefit China. it is unlikely to turn well for China on the bilateral level, but Beijing surely will try to make lemonade..."As a leader of the world's second-largest economy, Xi has made no secret of his ambition for China to lead an alternative world order. Since the end of the Covid pandemic, he has travelled extensively, and he has supported major international institutions such as the World Bank and agreements such as the Paris climate accords. Chinese state media have portrayed this as embracing countries across the world and deepening diplomatic ties. Before that, when Trump halted US funding to the WHO in 2020, China pledged additional funds. Expectations are high that Beijing may step in to fill America's shoes again, following Washington's exit from the WHO. The same applies for the aid freeze that is causing such chaos in countries and organisations that have long depended on US funding - China may wish to fill the gap, despite an economic downturn.


Type:Technology
👁 :2
UK not choosing between US and EU, says Starmer
Catagory:News
Author:Kate Whannel Political reporter
Posted Date:02/04/2025
Posted By:utopia online

The UK is "not choosing between the US and the EU", Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said after President Donald Trump threatened the European Union with trade tariffs. Over the weekend, Trump announced 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico - which have both since been paused - and said he would take similar action against the EU but suggested a deal could be "worked out" with the UK. Asked if he would be willing to water down attempts to forge closer ties with the EU in exchange for keeping the US on side, Sir Keir said both relationships were important to the UK. "Now, that for me isn't new, I think that's always been the case and will be the case for many, many years to come," he added. The prime minister told a press conference in Brussels it was "early days" when it came to tariff talks with the US and that he backed "open and strong trading relations". Sir Keir was in Belgium to meet Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte and attend talks with EU leaders - the first PM to do so since Brexit. Asked about tensions between the US and the EU, Rutte said there were "always issues between allies" but that would "not get in the way of our collective determination to keep our deterrent strong". On Ukraine, he said Nato - the military alliance of Western countries - had to "not only sustain but continue to step up our support" to ensure Ukraine could negotiate with Russia from "a position of strength". He added that spending 2% of national income on defence was "not enough to keep us safe" and that there was "no time to waste" in boosting funding. Currently Nato asks every member country to spend a least 2% of GDP on defence, however it is thought only 23 of the 32 members meet the target. Sir Keir said the UK currently spends 2.3% and that his government would shortly be setting out "the path" towards reaching 2.5%. Speaking at a European Council dinner, the prime minister called for more military collaboration between the UK and Europe including by improving military mobility and logistics across Europe, focusing on research and development and deepening industrial collaboration. He also said there should be more co-operation to protect against state threats and sabotage, including on subsea infrastructure. This comes after the UK issued a warning to Russia last month after a spy ship was spotted near undersea cables. While defence is the focus of his Brussels trip, for Sir Keir it is also part of an ongoing bid to "reset" UK-EU relations. The UK government wants to forge stronger links with the EU - but that could anger the US and risk the UK getting caught up in a trade war. Similarly, the EU might object to Sir Keir siding with the US rather than its European neighbours. Earlier, No 10 said the prime minister trusted Trump and pointed to "a really constructive early set of conversations" between the two men. "We've got a fair and balanced trading relationship which benefits both sides of the Atlantic," the spokesman added. "It's worth around £300bn and we are each other's single largest investors, with £1.2tn invested in each other's economies." Reform UK leader Nigel Farage the prime minister's commitment to industrial collaboration with the EU showed he was "a rejoiner at heart". The UK should be negotiating a free trade deal with the US instead, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Tuesday, claiming the EU was "diminishing every year". "If we start to tie ourselves to industrial collaboration, as it appears was agreed last night, then we find ourselves with less flexibility in doing deals with countries like America. "My fear is we tie ourselves to EU law." Referance:https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e1wnvkzeyo


Type:Technology
👁 :12
Trump says US will send some migrants to Guantanamo Bay
Catagory:News
Author:Bernd Debusmann Jr BBC News, White House
Posted Date:01/30/2025
Posted By:utopia online

US President Donald Trump has ordered the construction of a migrant detention facility in Guantanamo Bay which he said would hold as many as 30,000 people. He said the facility at the US Navy base in Cuba, which would be separate from its high-security military prison, would house "the worst criminal illegal aliens threatening the American people". Guantanamo Bay has long been used to house immigrants, a practice that has been criticised by some human rights groups. Later on Wednesday, Trump's "border tsar" Tom Homan said the existing facility there would be expanded and run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).He said the migrants could be transported there directly after being intercepted at sea by the US Coast Guard, and that the "highest" detention standards would be applied. It is unclear how much the facility will cost or when it would be completed. Cuba's government swiftly condemned the plan, accusing the US of torture and illegal detention on "occupied" land. Trump's announcement came as he signed the so-called Laken Riley Act into law, which requires undocumented immigrants who are arrested for theft or violent crimes to be held in jail pending trial. The bill, named after a Georgia nursing student who was murdered last year by a Venezuelan migrant, was approved by Congress last week, an early legislative win for the administration.At a signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Trump said the new Guantanamo executive order would instruct the departments of defence and homeland security to "begin preparing" the 30,000-bed facility. "Some of them are so bad we don't even trust the countries to hold them, because we don't want them coming back," he said of migrants. "So we're going to send them to Guantanamo... it's a tough place to get out." According to Trump, the facility will double the US capacity to hold undocumented migrants. The US has already been using a facility in Guantanamo - known as the Guantanamo Migrant Operations Center (GMOC) - for decades and through various administrations, both Republican and Democrat. In a 2024 report, the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) accused the government of secretly holding migrants there in "inhumane" conditions indefinitely after detaining them at sea. The GMOC has principally housed migrants picked up at sea and was recently the subject of a Freedom of Information request by the American Civil Liberties Union for the disclosure of records about the site. The Biden Administration responded that it "is not a detention facility and none of the migrants there are detained". The Trump administration, however, says the planned expanded facility is very much intended as a detention centre. It will reportedly ask Congress to fund the expansion of the existing detention facility as part of a spending bill Republicans are working to assemble.When asked by reporters at the White House, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said only that the money would be allotted through "reconciliation and appropriations". The military prison on Guantanamo has, for decades, held detainees taken into US custody after the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001. At its peak it held hundreds of prisoners, and several Democratic presidents including Barack Obama have vowed to close it. There are 15 prisoners currently being held there. News of the facility's expansion was met with swift condemnation by the Cuban government, which has long considered Guantanamo Bay to be "occupied" and has denounced the existence of a US naval base on the island ever since Fidel Castro swept to power in 1959. "In act act of brutality, the new government of the US has announced it will incarcerate, at the naval base at Guantanamo, located in illegally occupied Cuban territory, thousands of forcibly expulsed migrants, who will be located near known prisons of torture and illegal detention," Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel wrote on X. The Cuban Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodriguez, said the announcement showed "contempt for the human condition and international law".


Type:Social
👁 :4
Russia withdraws military equipment from Syrian port, images show
Catagory:News
Author:Nick Eardley, Matt Murphy & Joshua Cheetham BBC Verify
Posted Date:01/30/2025
Posted By:utopia online

Russia has stepped up its military withdrawal from Syria, removing vehicles and containers from its key Tartous port on the country's Mediterranean coast, analysis by BBC Verify suggests. After the fall of the Assad regime in December, verified footage showed columns of Russian vehicles moving north towards the port. Satellite images subsequently showed military hardware being stored there. But new images published on Wednesday by Planet Labs showed that much of the material has now disappeared, after the departure of vessels linked to the Russian military. It comes as Russian officials held "frank discussions" with the new government in Damascus, Reuters reported on Wednesday. There have been reports that the new Syrian government has cancelled Russia's lease at the port - but government departments contacted by the BBC would not confirm a final decision had been made. Tartous has been a key base for Russia in recent years, allowing it to refuel, resupply and repair vessels in the Mediterranean. But warships previously docked at the port have not appeared in satellite images since the collapse of the Assad regime - which Moscow backed throughout the Syrian civil war. The Kremlin has signalled its desire to retain control over the base, and said in December that it was speaking to the new authorities about maintaining a presence there. However, evidence suggests that Moscow has now decided to move valuable equipment away from the port. Satellite images have also shown Russian hardware being removed from the nearby Hmeimim airbase for several weeks. Two vessels - Sparta and Sparta II - docked at Tartous on 21 and 22 January, ship tracking sites showed. Both vessels are owned by Oboronlogistika LLC - a shipping company which operates as part of the Russian ministry of defence. Both ships are sanctioned by the US and have been linked by Ukraine to the transportation of Russian arms. They are roll-on/roll-off vessels that can carry vehicles. Sparta II departed the port by Monday, according to data from the tracking website MarineTraffic. Satellite images also revealed that a large quantity of military vehicles previously parked near the vessel were no longer there.The signal of the ship's onboard tracker was briefly picked up by MarineTraffic on Tuesday morning, showing it was travelling west through the Mediterranean near the coast of Cyprus. But since then, no signal has been received, suggesting the tracker may have been turned off. On Wednesday, satellite images showed another vessel - identified by experts as the Sparta - had also left the port. The images also show a large quantity of containers parked nearby had been removed.Maritime expert Frederik Van Lokeren, a former Belgian navy lieutenant and analyst, said he was "highly confident" the vessel that had left the port was Sparta, based on satellite images.It is unclear where exactly the ships are heading. Mr Van Lokeren told BBC Verify that they could be en route to Libya, where the Kremlin already boasts a significant military presence supporting the Tobruk-based warlord Khalifa Haftar. Last week, Ukrainian military intelligence told BBC Verify that Russian flights had transferred military personnel and equipment from Russia's other Syrian base - Hmeimim - to airbases in Libya at least 10 times since mid-December. However, Mr Van Lokeren also suggested that the ships could be bound for Russia, where he said there was a "large probability that the military equipment might end up being deployed on the frontline against Ukraine". Dmitry Gorenburg, an expert on security issues in the former Soviet Union at Harvard University, told BBC Verify that the movements suggested Russia's presence at Tartous was coming to an end. "I don't know whether additional ships will be needed to remove everything or not, but to my mind that's largely immaterial," he said. "It's just a question of time until Russia's military presence at the base is concluded. We shall see what comes after."


Type:News
👁 :32
The Disappearance of Mr. Davenheim Part Two (2)
Catagory:Reading
Author:AGATHA CHRISTIE
Posted Date:01/30/2025
Posted By:utopia online

“Any other clothes missing from the house?” “No, his valet is quite positive on that point. The rest of his wardrobe is intact. There’s more. We’ve arrested Lowen. One of the maids, whose business it is to fasten the bedroom windows, declares that she saw Lowen coming towards the study through the rose-garden about a quarter past six. That would be about ten minutes before he left the house.” “What does he himself say to that?” “Denied first of all that he had ever left the study. But the maid was positive, and he pretended afterwards that he had forgotten just stepping out of the window to examine an unusual species of rose. Rather a weak story! And there’s fresh evidence against him come to light. Mr. Davenheim always wore a thick gold ring set with a solitaire diamond on the little finger of his right hand. Well, that ring was pawned in London on Saturday night by a man called Billy Kellett! He’s already known to the police—did three months last autumn for lifting an old gentleman’s watch. It seems he tried to pawn the ring at no less than five different places, succeeded at the last one, got gloriously drunk on the proceeds, assaulted a policeman, and was run in in consequence. I went to Bow Street with Miller and saw him. He’s sober enough now, and I don’t mind admitting we pretty well frightened the life out of him, hinting he might be charged with murder. This is his yarn, and a very queer one it is. “He was at Entfield races on Saturday, though I dare say scarfpins was his line of business, rather than betting. Anyway, he had a bad day, and was down on his luck. He was tramping along the road to Chingside, and sat down in a ditch to rest just before he got into the village. A few minutes later he noticed a man coming along the road to the village, ‘dark-complexioned gent, with a big moustache, one of them city toffs,’ is his description of the man. “Kellett was half concealed from the road by a heap of stones. Just before he got abreast of him, the man looked quickly up and down the road, and seeing it apparently deserted he took a small object from his pocket and threw it over the hedge. Then he went on towards the station. Now, the object he had thrown over the hedge had fallen with a slight ‘chink’ which aroused the curiosity of the human derelict in the ditch. He investigated and, after a short search, discovered the ring! That is Kellett’s story. It’s only fair to say that Lowen denies it utterly, and of course the word of a man like Kellett can’t be relied upon in the slightest. It’s within the bounds of possibility that he met Davenheim in the lane and robbed and murdered him.” Poirot shook his head. “Very improbable, mon ami. He had no means of disposing of the body. It would have been found by now. Secondly, the open way in which he pawned the ring makes it unlikely that he did murder to get it. Thirdly, your sneak-thief is rarely a murderer. Fourthly, as he has been in prison since Saturday, it would be too much of a coincidence that he is able to give so accurate a description of Lowen.” Japp nodded. “I don’t say you’re not right. But all the same, you won’t get a jury to take much note of a jailbird’s evidence. What seems odd to me is that Lowen couldn’t find a cleverer way of disposing of the ring.” Poirot shrugged his shoulders. “Well, after all, if it were found in the neighbourhood, it might be argued that Davenheim himself had dropped it.” “But why remove it from the body at all?” I cried. “There might be a reason for that,” said Japp. “Do you know that just beyond the lake, a little gate leads out on to the hill, and not three minutes’ walk brings you to—what do you think?—a lime kiln.” “Good heavens!” I cried. “You mean that the lime which destroyed the body would be powerless to affect the metal of the ring?” “Exactly.” “It seems to me,” I said, “that that explains everything. What a horrible crime!” By common consent we both turned and looked at Poirot. He seemed lost in reflection, his brow knitted, as though with some supreme mental effort. I felt that at last his keen intellect was asserting itself. What would his first words be? We were not long left in doubt. With a sigh, the tension of his attitude relaxed, and turning to Japp, he asked: “Have you any idea, my friend, whether Mr. and Mrs. Davenheim occupied the same bedroom?” The question seemed so ludicrously inappropriate that for a moment we both stared in silence. Then Japp burst into a laugh. “Good Lord, Monsieur Poirot, I thought you were coming out with something startling. As to your question, I’m sure I don’t know.” “You could find out?” asked Poirot with curious persistence. “Oh, certainly—if you really want to know.” “Merci, mon ami. I should be obliged if you would make a point of it.” Japp stared at him a few minutes longer, but Poirot seemed to have forgotten us both. The detective shook his head sadly at me, and murmuring, “Poor old fellow! War’s been too much for him!” gently withdrew from the room. As Poirot still seemed sunk in a daydream, I took a sheet of paper, and amused myself by scribbling notes upon it. My friend’s voice aroused me. He had come out of his reverie, and was looking brisk and alert. “Que faites-vous là, mon ami?” “I was jotting down what occurred to me as the main points of interest in this affair.” “You become methodical—at last!” said Poirot approvingly. I concealed my pleasure. “Shall I read them to you?” “By all means.” I cleared my throat. “‘One: All the evidence points to Lowen having been the man who forced the safe. “‘Two: He had a grudge against Davenheim. “‘Three: He lied in his first statement that he had never left the study. “‘Four: If you accept Billy Kellett’s story as true, Lowen is unmistakably implicated.’” I paused. “Well?” I asked, for I felt that I had put my finger on all the vital facts. Poirot looked at me pityingly, shaking his head very gently. “Mon pauvre ami! But it is that you have not the gift! The important detail, you appreciate him never! Also, your reasoning is false.” “How?” “Let me take your four points. “One: Mr. Lowen could not possibly know that he would have the chance to open the safe. He came for a business interview. He could not know beforehand that Mr. Davenheim would be absent posting a letter, and that he would consequently be alone in the study!” “He might have seized his opportunity,” I suggested. “And the tools? City gentlemen do not carry round housebreaker’s tools on the off chance! And one could not cut into that safe with a penknife, bien entendu!” “Well, what about Number Two?” “You say Lowen had a grudge against Mr. Davenheim. What you mean is that he had once or twice got the better of him. And presumably those transactions were entered into with the view of benefiting himself. In any case you do not as a rule bear a grudge against a man you have got the better of—it is more likely to be the other way about. Whatever grudge there might have been would have been on Mr. Davenheim’s side.” “Well, you can’t deny that he lied about never having left the study?” “No. But he may have been frightened. Remember, the missing man’s clothes had just been discovered in the lake. Of course, as usual, he would have done better to speak the truth.” “And the fourth point?” “I grant you that. If Kellett’s story is true, Lowen is undeniably implicated. That is what makes the affair so very interesting.” “Then I did appreciate one vital fact?” “Perhaps—but you have entirely overlooked the two most important points, the ones which undoubtedly hold the clue to the whole matter.” “And pray, what are they?” “One, the passion which has grown upon Mr. Davenheim in the last few years for buying jewellery. Two, his trip to Buenos Ayres last autumn.” “Poirot, you are joking!” “I am most serious. Ah, sacred thunder, but I hope Japp will not forget my little commission.” But the detective, entering into the spirit of the joke, had remembered it so well that a telegram was handed to Poirot about eleven o’clock the next day. At his request I opened it and read it out: “‘Husband and wife have occupied separate rooms since last winter.’” “Aha!” cried Poirot. “And now we are in mid June! All is solved!” I stared at him. “You have no moneys in the bank of Davenheim and Salmon, mon ami?” “No,” I said, wondering. “Why?” “Because I should advise you to withdraw it—before it is too late.” “Why, what do you expect?” “I expect a big smash in a few days—perhaps sooner. Which reminds me, we will return the compliment of a dépêche to Japp. A pencil, I pray you, and a form. Voilà! ‘Advise you to withdraw any money deposited with firm in question.’ That will intrigue him, the good Japp! His eyes will open wide—wide! He will not comprehend in the slightest—until to-morrow, or the next day!” I remained sceptical, but the morrow forced me to render tribute to my friend’s remarkable powers. In every paper was a huge headline telling of the sensational failure of the Davenheim bank. The disappearance of the famous financier took on a totally different aspect in the light of the revelation of the financial affairs of the bank. Before we were half-way through breakfast, the door flew open and Japp rushed in. In his left hand was a paper; in his right was Poirot’s telegram, which he banged down on the table in front of my friend. “How did you know, Monsieur Poirot? How the blazes could you know?” Poirot smiled placidly at him. “Ah, mon ami, after your wire, it was a certainty! From the commencement, see you, it struck me that the safe burglary was somewhat remarkable. Jewels, ready money, bearer bonds—all so conveniently arranged for—whom? Well, the good Monsieur Davenheim was of those who ‘look after Number One’ as your saying goes! It seemed almost certain that it was arranged for—himself! Then his passion of late years for buying jewellery! How simple! The funds he embezzled, he converted into jewels, very likely replacing them in turn with paste duplicates, and so he put away in a safe place, under another name, a considerable fortune to be enjoyed all in good time when every one has been thrown off the track. His arrangements completed, he makes an appointment with Mr. Lowen (who has been imprudent enough in the past to cross the great man once or twice), drills a hole in the safe, leaves orders that the guest is to be shown into the study, and walks out of the house—where?” Poirot stopped, and stretched out his hand for another boiled egg. He frowned. “It is really insupportable,” he murmured, “that every hen lays an egg of a different size! What symmetry can there be on the breakfast table? At least they should sort them in dozens at the shop!” “Never mind the eggs,” said Japp impatiently. “Let ’em lay ’em square if they like. Tell us where our customer went to when he left The Cedars—that is, if you know!” “Eh bien, he went to his hiding-place. Ah, this Monsieur Davenheim, there may be some malformation in his grey cells, but they are of the first quality!” “Do you know where he is hiding?” “Certainly! It is most ingenious.” “For the Lord’s sake, tell us, then!” Poirot gently collected every fragment of shell from his plate, placed them in the egg-cup, and reversed the empty egg-shell on top of them. This little operation concluded, he smiled on the neat effect, and then beamed affectionately on us both. “Come, my friends, you are men of intelligence. Ask yourselves the question which I asked myself. ‘If I were this man, where should I hide?’ Hastings, what do you say?” “Well,” I said, “I’m rather inclined to think I’d not do a bolt at all. I’d stay in London—in the heart of things, travel by tubes and buses; ten to one I’d never be recognized. There’s safety in a crowd.” Poirot turned inquiringly to Japp. “I don’t agree. Get clear away at once—that’s the only chance. I would have had plenty of time to prepare things beforehand. I’d have a yacht waiting, with steam up, and I’d be off to one of the most out-of-the-way corners of the world before the hue and cry began!” We both looked at Poirot. “What do you say, monsieur?” For a moment he remained silent. Then a very curious smile flitted across his face. “My friends, if I were hiding from the police, do you know where I should hide? In a prison!” “What?” “You are seeking Monsieur Davenheim in order to put him in prison, so you never dream of looking to see if he may not be already there!” “What do you mean?” “You tell me Madame Davenheim is not a very intelligent woman. Nevertheless I think that if you took her to Bow Street and confronted her with the man Billy Kellett, she would recognize him! In spite of the fact that he has shaved his beard and moustache and those bushy eyebrows, and has cropped his hair close. A woman nearly always knows her husband, though the rest of the world may be deceived!” “Billy Kellett? But he’s known to the police!” “Did I not tell you Davenheim was a clever man? He prepared his alibi long beforehand. He was not in Buenos Ayres last autumn—he was creating the character of Billy Kellett, ‘doing three months,’ so that the police should have no suspicions when the time came. He was playing, remember, for a large fortune, as well as liberty. It was worth while doing the thing thoroughly. Only——” “Yes?” “Eh bien, afterwards he had to wear a false beard and wig, had to make up as himself again, and to sleep with a false beard is not easy—it invites detection! He cannot risk continuing to share the chamber of madame his wife. You found out for me that for the last six months, or ever since his supposed return from Buenos Ayres, he and Mrs. Davenheim occupied separate rooms. Then I was sure! Everything fitted in. The gardener who fancied he saw his master going round to the side of the house was quite right. He went to the boathouse, donned his ‘tramp’ clothes, which you may be sure had been safely hidden from the eyes of his valet, dropped the others in the lake, and proceeded to carry out his plan by pawning the ring in an obvious manner, and then assaulting a policeman, getting himself safely into the haven of Bow Street, where nobody would ever dream of looking for him!” “It’s impossible,” murmured Japp. “Ask Madame,” said my friend, smiling. The next day a registered letter lay beside Poirot’s plate. He opened it, and a five-pound note fluttered out. My friend’s brow puckered. “Ah, sacré! But what shall I do with it? I have much remorse! Ce pauvre Japp! Ah, an idea! We will have a little dinner, we three! That consoles me. It was really too easy. I am ashamed. I, who would not rob a child—mille tonnerres! Mon ami, what have you, that you laugh so heartily?”


Type:Social
👁 :24
The Disappearance of Mr. Davenheim
Catagory:Reading
Author:AGATHA CHRISTIE
Posted Date:01/30/2025
Posted By:utopia online

Poirot and I were expecting our old friend Inspector Japp of Scotland Yard to tea. We were sitting round the tea-table awaiting his arrival. Poirot had just finished carefully straightening the cups and saucers which our landlady was in the habit of throwing, rather than placing, on the table. He had also breathed heavily on the metal teapot, and polished it with a silk handkerchief. The kettle was on the boil, and a small enamel saucepan beside it contained some thick, sweet chocolate which was more to Poirot’s palate than what he described as “your English poison.” A sharp “rat-tat” sounded below, and a few minutes afterwards Japp entered briskly. “Hope I’m not late,” he said as he greeted us. “To tell the truth, I was yarning with Miller, the man who’s in charge of the Davenheim case.” I pricked up my ears. For the last three days the papers had been full of the strange disappearance of Mr. Davenheim, senior partner of Davenheim and Salmon, the well-known bankers and financiers. On Saturday last he had walked out of his house, and had never been seen since. I looked forward to extracting some interesting details from Japp. “I should have thought,” I remarked, “that it would be almost impossible for anyone to ‘disappear’ nowadays.” Poirot moved a plate of bread and butter the eighth of an inch, and said sharply: “Be exact, my friend. What do you mean by ‘disappear’? To which class of disappearance are you referring?” “Are disappearances classified and labelled, then?” I laughed. Japp smiled also. Poirot frowned at us both. “But certainly they are! They fall into three categories: First, and most common, the voluntary disappearance. Second, the much abused ‘loss of memory’ case—rare, but occasionally genuine. Third, murder, and a more or less successful disposal of the body. Do you refer to all three as impossible of execution?” “Very nearly so, I should think. You might lose your own memory, but some one would be sure to recognize you—especially in the case of a well-known man like Davenheim. Then ‘bodies’ can’t be made to vanish into thin air. Sooner or later they turn up, concealed in lonely places, or in trunks. Murder will out. In the same way, the absconding clerk, or the domestic defaulter, is bound to be run down in these days of wireless telegraphy. He can be headed off from foreign countries; ports and railway stations are watched; and, as for concealment in this country, his features and appearance will be known to every one who reads a daily newspaper. He’s up against civilization.” “Mon ami,” said Poirot, “you make one error. You do not allow for the fact that a man who had decided to make away with another man—or with himself in a figurative sense—might be that rare machine, a man of method. He might bring intelligence, talent, a careful calculation of detail to the task; and then I do not see why he should not be successful in baffling the police force.” “But not you, I suppose?” said Japp good-humouredly, winking at me. “He couldn’t baffle you, eh, Monsieur Poirot?” Poirot endeavoured, with a marked lack of success, to look modest. “Me, also! Why not? It is true that I approach such problems with an exact science, a mathematical precision, which seems, alas, only too rare in the new generation of detectives!” Japp grinned more widely. “I don’t know,” he said. “Miller, the man who’s on this case, is a smart chap. You may be very sure he won’t overlook a footprint, or a cigar-ash, or a crumb even. He’s got eyes that see everything.” “So, mon ami,” said Poirot, “has the London sparrow. But all the same, I should not ask the little brown bird to solve the problem of Mr. Davenheim.” “Come now, monsieur, you’re not going to run down the value of details as clues?” “By no means. These things are all good in their way. The danger is they may assume undue importance. Most details are insignificant; one or two are vital. It is the brain, the little grey cells”—he tapped his forehead—“on which one must rely. The senses mislead. One must seek the truth within—not without.” “You don’t mean to say, Monsieur Poirot, that you would undertake to solve a case without moving from your chair, do you?” “That is exactly what I do mean—granted the facts were placed before me. I regard myself as a consulting specialist.” Japp slapped his knee. “Hanged if I don’t take you at your word. Bet you a fiver that you can’t lay your hand—or rather tell me where to lay my hand—on Mr. Davenheim, dead or alive, before a week is out.” Poirot considered. “Eh bien, mon ami, I accept. Le sport, it is the passion of you English. Now—the facts.” “On Saturday last, as is his usual custom, Mr. Davenheim took the 12.40 train from Victoria to Chingside, where his palatial country place, The Cedars, is situated. After lunch, he strolled round the grounds, and gave various directions to the gardeners. Everybody agrees that his manner was absolutely normal and as usual. After tea he put his head into his wife’s boudoir, saying that he was going to stroll down to the village and post some letters. He added that he was expecting a Mr. Lowen, on business. If he should come before he himself returned, he was to be shown into the study and asked to wait. Mr. Davenheim then left the house by the front door, passed leisurely down the drive, and out at the gate, and—was never seen again. From that hour, he vanished completely.” “Pretty—very pretty—altogether a charming little problem,” murmured Poirot. “Proceed, my good friend.” “About a quarter of an hour later a tall, dark man with a thick black moustache rang the front-door bell, and explained that he had an appointment with Mr. Davenheim. He gave the name of Lowen, and in accordance with the banker’s instructions was shown into the study. Nearly an hour passed. Mr. Davenheim did not return. Finally Mr. Lowen rang the bell, and explained that he was unable to wait any longer, as he must catch his train back to town. Mrs. Davenheim apologized for her husband’s absence, which seemed unaccountable, as she knew him to have been expecting the visitor. Mr. Lowen reiterated his regrets and took his departure. “Well, as every one knows, Mr. Davenheim did not return. Early on Sunday morning the police were communicated with, but could make neither head nor tail of the matter. Mr. Davenheim seemed literally to have vanished into thin air. He had not been to the post office; nor had he been seen passing through the village. At the station they were positive he had not departed by any train. His own motor had not left the garage. If he had hired a car to meet him in some lonely spot, it seems almost certain that by this time, in view of the large reward offered for information, the driver of it would have come forward to tell what he knew. True, there was a small race-meeting at Entfield, five miles away, and if he had walked to that station he might have passed unnoticed in the crowd. But since then his photograph and a full description of him have been circulated in every newspaper, and nobody has been able to give any news of him. We have, of course, received many letters from all over England, but each clue, so far, has ended in disappointment. “On Monday morning a further sensational discovery came to light. Behind a portière in Mr. Davenheim’s study stands a safe, and that safe had been broken into and rifled. The windows were fastened securely on the inside, which seems to put an ordinary burglary out of court, unless, of course, an accomplice within the house fastened them again afterwards. On the other hand, Sunday having intervened, and the household being in a state of chaos, it is likely that the burglary was committed on the Saturday, and remained undetected until Monday.” “Précisément,” said Poirot dryly. “Well, is he arrested, ce pauvre M. Lowen?” Japp grinned. “Not yet. But he’s under pretty close supervision.” Poirot nodded. “What was taken from the safe? Have you any idea?” “We’ve been going into that with the junior partner of the firm and Mrs. Davenheim. Apparently there was a considerable amount in bearer bonds, and a very large sum in notes, owing to some large transaction having been just carried through. There was also a small fortune in jewellery. All Mrs. Davenheim’s jewels were kept in the safe. The purchasing of them had become a passion with her husband of late years, and hardly a month passed that he did not make her a present of some rare and costly gem.” “Altogether a good haul,” said Poirot thoughtfully. “Now, what about Lowen? Is it known what his business was with Davenheim that evening?” “Well, the two men were apparently not on very good terms. Lowen is a speculator in quite a small way. Nevertheless, he has been able once or twice to score a coup off Davenheim in the market, though it seems they seldom or never actually met. It was a matter concerning some South American shares which led the banker to make his appointment.” “Had Davenheim interests in South America, then?” “I believe so. Mrs. Davenheim happened to mention that he spent all last autumn in Buenos Ayres.” “Any trouble in his home life? Were the husband and wife on good terms?” “I should say his domestic life was quite peaceful and uneventful. Mrs. Davenheim is a pleasant, rather unintelligent woman. Quite a nonentity, I think.” “Then we must not look for the solution of the mystery there. Had he any enemies?” “He had plenty of financial rivals, and no doubt there are many people whom he has got the better of who bear him no particular good-will. But there was no one likely to make away with him—and, if they had, where is the body?” “Exactly. As Hastings says, bodies have a habit of coming to light with fatal persistency.” “By the way, one of the gardeners says he saw a figure going round to the side of the house toward the rose-garden. The long French window of the study opens on to the rose-garden, and Mr. Davenheim frequently entered and left the house that way. But the man was a good way off, at work on some cucumber frames, and cannot even say whether it was the figure of his master or not. Also, he cannot fix the time with any accuracy. It must have been before six, as the gardeners cease work at that time.” “And Mr. Davenheim left the house?” “About half-past five or thereabouts.” “What lies beyond the rose-garden?” “A lake.” “With a boathouse?” “Yes, a couple of punts are kept there. I suppose you’re thinking of suicide, Monsieur Poirot? Well, I don’t mind telling you that Miller’s going down to-morrow expressly to see that piece of water dragged. That’s the kind of man he is!” Poirot smiled faintly, and turned to me. “Hastings, I pray you, hand me that copy of the Daily Megaphone. If I remember rightly, there is an unusually clear photograph there of the missing man.” I rose, and found the sheet required. Poirot studied the features attentively. “H’m!” he murmured. “Wears his hair rather long and wavy, full moustache and pointed beard, bushy eyebrows. Eyes dark?” “Yes.” “Hair and beard turning grey?” The detective nodded. “Well, Monsieur Poirot, what have you got to say to it all? Clear as daylight, eh?” “On the contrary, most obscure.” The Scotland Yard man looked pleased. “Which gives me great hopes of solving it,” finished Poirot placidly. “Eh?” “I find it a good sign when a case is obscure. If a thing is clear as daylight—eh bien, mistrust it! Some one has made it so.” Japp shook his head almost pityingly. “Well, each to their fancy. But it’s not a bad thing to see your way clear ahead.” “I do not see,” murmured Poirot. “I shut my eyes—and think.” Japp sighed. “Well, you’ve got a clear week to think in.” “And you will bring me any fresh developments that arise—the result of the labours of the hard-working and lynx-eyed Inspector Miller, for instance?” “Certainly. That’s in the bargain.” “Seems a shame, doesn’t it?” said Japp to me as I accompanied him to the door. “Like robbing a child!” I could not help agreeing with a smile. I was still smiling as I re-entered the room. “Eh bien!” said Poirot immediately. “You make fun of Papa Poirot, is it not so?” He shook his finger at me. “You do not trust his grey cells? Ah, do not be confused! Let us discuss this little problem—incomplete as yet, I admit, but already showing one or two points of interest.” “The lake!” I said significantly. “And even more than the lake, the boathouse!” I looked sidewise at Poirot. He was smiling in his most inscrutable fashion. I felt that, for the moment, it would be quite useless to question him further. We heard nothing of Japp until the following evening, when he walked in about nine o’clock. I saw at once by his expression that he was bursting with news of some kind. “Eh bien, my friend,” remarked Poirot. “All goes well? But do not tell me that you have discovered the body of Mr. Davenheim in your lake, because I shall not believe you.” “We haven’t found the body, but we did find his clothes—the identical clothes he was wearing that day. What do you say to that?”


Type:Social
Page 28 of 113