BP releases its report into the oil spill which followed the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.
Click here to read a summary of the day's events so far and follow live coverage below

4.09pm:

The publication of BP's report is headline news on many US news websites.

The New York Times says the report "tries to undermine the notion that the company acted with gross negligence".

Because of its authorship, the report is unlikely to carry much weight in influencing the Department of Justice, which is considering criminal and civil charges related to the spill.

The report is, however, as much a public relations exercise as a preview of BP's probable legal strategy as it prepares to defend itself against possible federal charges, penalties and hundreds of pending lawsuits.

WWL-TV, a news channel based in Louisiana, one of the states affected by the spill, said BP had "spread the blame around", but pointed out that "in public hearings, it had already tried to shift some of the blame to rig owner Transocean Ltd. and cement contractor Halliburton".

It added:

BP's report is far from the final word on possible causes of the explosion, as several divisions of the U.S. government, including the Justice Department, Coast Guard and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, are also investigating.

3.28pm:

Transocean has accused BP of attempting to "conceal" its own failings in today's report, and says the company "made a series of cost-saving decisions that increased risk" during the drilling.

Transocean owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon rig, and is one of the two companies which BP's report says are also responsible for the explosion.

However the company says it was BP's "fatally flawed well design" which set the stage for the incident. It says cost-cutting by BP contributed to the increasing of risk in the design and construction of the Macondo well.

Transocean also appears to hint that BP is holding up its own report into the Deepwater disaster by failing to release evidence.

Here's the statement in full, courtesy of my colleague Graeme Wearden.

"This is a self-serving report that attempts to conceal the critical factor that set the stage for the Macondo incident: BP's fatally flawed well design. In both its design and construction, BP made a series of cost-saving decisions that increased risk – in some cases, severely. Those decisions, made exclusively by BP, included:

• Using a long production string rather than a casing tie back, decreasing the number of barriers to gas flow.
• Neglecting to run a cement bond log (CBL) to test the integrity of the cement.
• Installing fewer than one third of the recommended number of centralizers, dramatically increasing the risk of cement channelling and gas flow.
• Failing to conduct a complete "bottoms up" circulation of the well to insure the quality of the cement seal.
• Not running a lockdown sleeve to secure the production string to the well head, eliminating yet another barrier to a blowout.

Transocean's investigation is ongoing, and will be concluded when all of the evidence is in, including the critical information the company has requested of BP but has yet to receive."

Graeme adds that Wall Street is now open, and says Transocean's shares are actually up in early trading, so far gaining 1.5% in New York.

"Cameron International, which made the blowout preventer that failed to stop the leak, are also up nearly 1.7%. Halliburton has taken a hit, though, down around 0.3%," Graeme said.

"BP's own shares are currently up around 1.5% in London. So traders are taking this report in their stride, so far..."

3.15pm:

Terry Macalister has sent me what he says could be the key section in BP's report. The final sentence reiterates BP's main argument – "multiple companies" were involved in the failure.

"The team [investigating the explosion] did not identify any single action or inaction that caused this accident. Rather, a complex and interlinked series of mechanical failures, human judgments, engineering design, operational implementation and team interfaces came together to allow the initiation and escalation of the accident. Multiple companies, work teams and circumstances were involved over time."

2.59pm:

Here's the Guardian's head of environment, Damian Carrington, outlining the main points of BP's report.

"It's a pretty terrifying picture for a drilling operation that was supposed to be failsafe," Damian says.

2.50pm:

No response from the White House yet to the report, although President Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about it in yesterday's press briefing.

Gibbs appears to say that the US government had not seen a copy of the report, which seems strange. Here's the exchange:

Q: BP is going to release its report tomorrow into the causes of the oil spill. Has the White House had an advance look at this? And secondly, given the past relationship between the administration and the company, what level of confidence do you have that this is going to produce a genuine finding into what caused the accident?

Gibbs: Well, look, I'll say this. I know of no one that has seen it here. I've certainly seen emails alluding to the notion that -- and clips alluding to the notion that this is -- this will be released. Obviously I think we'd want a chance to look at the report.

I think an important partner of that investigation, Stephen, ultimately is going to get -- is going to be a look at the blowout preventer itself, which only recently, in the last few days, has been brought to the surface, and will give us a chance to see whether was this a design flaw, was this something that was just a problem that this blowout preventer had to deal with, and a whole host of things.

So we'll certainly look through the report. Obviously -- look through the report and may have some comment about it. But I do not know of anybody who has seen an advance copy.

2.35pm:

Time for a round-up of the day's events so far.

• BP has released the findings of its investigation into the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The company has listed eight different issues which let to the Deepwater disaster, including that a test performed to see if the well was under control was accepted – despite the readings showing the well was not under control.

• The company has, as expected, sought to share the blame for the explosion and spill. In a press release accompanying the report Tony Hayward, BP's outgoing chief executive, said: "To put it simply, there was a bad cement job." It was US contractor Halliburton which cemented of the Macondo well.

• The report also points the finger at Transocean, which operated the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. "The negative pressure test was accepted when it should not have been [see top bullet-point], there were failures in well control procedures and in the blow-out preventer; and the rig's fire and gas system did not prevent ignition," Hayward said.

• Greenpeace has criticised BP, describing the report as a "sorry catalogue of gaffes and failures". Jim Footner, head of the charity's energy campaign, said: "It's highly likely that a truly independent report would be even more damning for BP." He added that the company are "weeks away" from drilling at similar depths in UK waters.

• BP's share price rose after the report was published, with shares up by 2% half an hour after publication. Later this afternoon the share price had fallen slightly but was still up 1.7%, at 413.7p. However this is a long way from the 650p BP's shares were trading at before the disaster on 20 April.

2.04pm:

Our US environment correspondent, Suzanne Goldenberg, has been speaking to Alfred R Sunsen – owner of New Orleans oyster company P&J, which is now facing ruin after 134 years in business.

Sunsen said he believes the report was "pretty thorough", although points out that BP said it carried out the report with limited access to physical evidence.

The oyster business owner writes:

The report does not address the people, businesses, animals, or natural resources that have been impacted by the disaster and will be dealing with the consequences of their inadequate and slow response to the disaster.

Me as well as my friends in the oyster business in Louisiana are in big trouble and will be for some time to come… Talk is cheap.

When BP shows me a report of how exactly they will deal with those people most impacted by this tragedy, i.e. those in the fisheries related businesses, I'll believe they are not just using their talents in public relations to dispel their liability, but have a plan to help us salvage our businesses and retain our livelihoods and heritage, by paying our bills until we are "made whole" as Mr Hayward and Mr Obama said months ago.

Suzanne has just arrived at the Washington DC hotel where Mark Bly – BP's head of safety and operations – is giving a briefing.

You can follow her tweets from the meeting @suzyji

1.50pm:

Damian Carrington emails: "Reaction to the BP report is starting to flow, and it's not going to be pretty."

This is from Jim Footner, head of Greenpeace's energy campaign.

"This report is a sorry catalogue of the gaffes and failures behind the Deepwater Horizon disaster. And it's highly likely that a truly independent report would be even more damning for BP.

"Worryingly, they're just weeks away from drilling at similar depths in UK waters. The Government must step in right now and stop this by introducing a moratorium on deep water drilling.

"But the real problem is our addiction to oil, which is pushing companies like BP to put lives and the environment at risk. The age of oil is coming to an end and companies like BP will be left behind unless they begin to adapt now. The time has come to move beyond oil and invest in clean energy."

1.39pm:

More financial reaction from Nick Fletcher:

The US market is not open yet for reaction, but Transocean's Swiss quoted shares are down nearly 1.5% following the release of the BP report suggesting the drilling contractor missed danger signs on the Deepwater Horizon rig. Meanwhile BP itself has slipped from its best levels but is still up 1.7% at 413.7p.

1.26pm:

Terry Macalister wonders what the report suggests re safety practices across the rest of the oil industry:

What is really shocking about this report is the catalogue of errors - both human and mechanical. They demolish once and for all the oil industry's much quoted mantra that "safety always comes first." It may come first in the board room but it does not down at the wellhead where the real dangers are faced.

It is worth remembering that BP, its rig operator Transocean and the main well contractor Halliburton are the blue chip companies in the wider oil and gas sector. If the shoddy work practices highlighted here are what the best-in-class do, then what is happening in the lower reaches of this industry?

1.20pm:

More from Damian Carrington:

BP is likely to have had its legal liability for the Deepwater disaster uppermost in its mind and the executive summary bears that out: of the four and half pages of text, the first page is entirely disclaimers of one sort or another. If BP was shown to have been "grossly negligent" then the financial penalties ramp up vastly.

1.12pm:

BP's executive summary [pdf, opens] lists eight main issues that led to the Deepwater disaster, killing 11 people and injuring 17.

Damian Carrington has been reading the findings.

"It is, frankly speaking, quite terrifying – a catalogue of appalling shoddiness," he writes.

Damian has simplified BP's eight findings below:

1 - The cement that was supposed to stop the oil and gas shooting up the well pipe didn't work - the report blames the type of cement used

2 - Futher barriers at the bottom of the drill pipe failed to stop the hydrocarbons bursting into the well pipe

3 - Amazingly, a pressure test performed to see if the well was under control was accepted despite the readings showing the well was not under control

4 - With oil and gas now pouring up the well, it took 40 minutes to realise this

5 - Once it was realised, the hydrocarbons were not diverted "overboard" but brought onto the rig

6 - This meant the hydrocarbons "vented directly onto the rig" - a frightening image

7 - The fire prevention system on the rig failed. "The heating, ventilation and air conditioning system probably transferred a gas-rich mixture into the engine rooms". That's where it probably caught fire and destroyed the rig

8 - Key point - the blowout preventer, the ultimate failsafe failed. The fire on the rig stopped the BOP being operated, while an automated system failed in part because the BOP had flat batteries in one control pod and a faulty solenoid valve in another

12.57pm:

The Guardian has a timeline charting over four months of the oil spill clean-up, environmental impact and the impact on BP and business.

We've also got a comprehensive Q&A on how the spill started, how much oil was lost and why some of the many efforts to plug the well failed.

Elsewhere, the New York Times has an all singing, all dancing graphic tracking the oil spill in the Gulf.

Seen something around the web which would worth us flagging up? You can either comment below the line or get in touch on Twitter: @adamgabbatt

12.42pm:

More from Terry Macalister on BP's efforts to share the blame:

Tony Hayward, the BP chief executive, puts part of the blame directly on to US contractor Halliburton (whose former chief executive was previous US vice president, Dick Cheney) which did the "cementing" of the Macondo well.

"To put it simply, there was a bad cement job," said Hayward in a statement which conflicts with a previously published email from a Halliburton employee on the rig to a colleague saying the job "went well."

BP also takes blame away from itself over the "design" of the well. "It would appear unlikely that the well design contributed to the incident," argues Hayward.

12.37pm:

Below the line, bombed writes: "I'm curious, who hired these other companies to work with BP? Was it BP themselves or some authority overseeing the whole endeavour?"

RealPol has the answer: "BP, through the tender process usually."

Interesting point.

12.30pm:

The Guardian's Nick Fletcher is following the reaction in the financial world to the report. Shares in BP, which rose this morning, have risen again, he writes.

The stock market seems to like BP's plan to share out the blame for the Gulf spillage, judging by the initial reaction.

The company's shares - already up 6.75p at 413.55p immediately ahead of the report's release - have made further gains now the findings are out. They currently stand at 414.95p, up 8.15p or 2%.

But the market is in a jittery mood and there is no guarantee that things will stay the same once investors have had time to digest the full report. And it is worth bearing in mind BP's shares were at 650p ahead of the disaster on April 20.

12.23pm:

Damian Carrington, the Guardian's head of environment, writes:

As well as very clearly seeking to spread the blame, the end of BP's press release notes that its report is based on "information available to the investigating team".

Once again, it turns the focus on its contractors: "Additional relevant information may be forthcoming, for example, when Halliburton's samples of the cement used in the well are released for testing and when the rig's blow-out preventer [owned and operated by Transocean] is fully examined now that it has been recovered from the sea-bed."

12.17pm:

Terry Macalister, our energy editor, says a first glance at the BP report confirms expectations that the company would argue that "multiple failures" by a number of different parties were to blame for the fatal blowout.

The report points the finger at Transocean (the rig operator) and Halliburton (the well contractor) as being as much to blame for the disaster as BP. The oil company always claimed to have been unfairly singled out by US politicians and now claims to have the proof that others should be held to account also.

12.12pm:

Some links on how to find information on the report:

• You can read BP's press release regarding the report here.

• BP has also produced a 29min video presenting its findings.

• You can download the executive summary of the report: [pdf, opens]

• Or download the report in full: [pdf, opens]

12.03pm:

The report has been published on BP's website.

"The investigation found that no single factor caused the Macondo well tragedy," is BP's findings in short.

"Rather, a sequence of failures involving a number of different parties led to the explosion and fire which killed 11 people and caused widespread pollution in the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year."

Much more to follow.

11.57am:

My colleague Graeme Wearden writes this morning that shares in BP rose by around 1% this morning to 412p ahead of the report's publication.

City analysts Evolution Securities said the investigation could shift culpability towards Transocean – which operated the Deepwater Horizon rig on BP's behalf – and "in particular the integrity of the blowout preventer which should have acted as the ultimate fail safe", Graeme reports.

BP also received good news from Fitch this morning, which raised its credit rating on BP to A, from BBB, with a stable outlook.

Fitch said that it was now more confident that the well was capped permanently.

"The "A" rating also reflects both the improved visibility of potential liability scenarios the company could still face and substantial payments that BP has made to date in building up liquidity to address potential financial payments," Fitch added.

11.50am:

BP's report into the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, and subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is published at noon today. The company is expected to admit it is partly to blame for the disaster, but will also claim that other companies must accept some responsibility.

The explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig on 20 April killed 11 workers and began a devastating spill which leaked over 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico – the largest spill in American history. The leak took three months, and a huge variety of different attempts (see interactive), to seal before BP finally closed it off on 15 July.

The ruptured oil well is still not permanently sealed, with the company announcing last week it will be two weeks before the leak is closed off for good. The leak was only allowed to occur when the blow-out preventer – the last line of defence against an out of control well – failed to activate after the explosion above the surface.

Today's report will examine why it failed, following an internal investigation into the events leading up to the explosion nearly five months ago. In July it was revealed that the blow-out preventer was modified in China in 2005.

Our team of experts will be poring over the BP report as soon as it is released, with key sections being reported and analysed here. We'll also have the latest reaction from the global markets and from other companies potentially implicated in the spill.

Follow the latest here and offer us your response below.

• Inquiry led by lawyer with no connection to past investigations
• Read the Guardian's 1999 investigation into the crash

Nick Clegg today announced a new independent legal inquiry into the 1994 Mull of Kintyre helicopter disaster that killed 29 people including top intelligence and anti-terrorist officers.

The deputy prime minister said the evidence surrounding the crash in western Scotland, which the RAF initially blamed on the two pilots, would be reviewed by a senior lawyer with no connections to previous reports.

An RAF board of inquiry ruled that the pilots – flight lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook – were guilty of "gross negligence". Their families have since been fighting to clear their names.

Clegg made the announcement in the House of Commons today during prime minister's questions as he was filling in for David Cameron who has flown to France to be with his ill father.

He told the Commons that the legal figure heading up the new investigation would have no links to past inquiries into the Mull of Kintyre accident.

"I am pleased to be able to confirm today we will be holding an independent review of the evidence of the Mull of Kintyre disaster, and I hope a review will be welcomed by those who died in this tragic accident," Clegg said.

"To ensure its complete independence, the review will be conducted by a respected lawyer who is independent of the government and who has not previously expressed a view on the disaster. The reviewer and the precise terms of reference will be announced soon.

Tapper's father, Mike, welcomed the announcement. He told the Guardian: "At last, we have a firm commitment from a government acting with integrity." All previous inquiries had been dismissed by a "stubborn" Ministry of Defence, he said.

"The fact is that the aircraft were brought into service with a completely new system which was in effect untried. The MoD knew damn well because Boscombe Down had told them," he added, referring to the MoD's aircraft research establishment which recommended grounding the Chinook fleet the day before the Mull of Kintyre crash.

Squadron Leader Robert Burke, a former Chinook test pilot who has been involved in compiling evidence in the case, said: "I am delighted, thrilled. It is the culmination of 15 years' work."

In June 1994 the Chinook helicopter crashed into a hillside near the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse in thick fog. Those on board, including top RUC special branch officers and a number of MI5 operatives, were on their way from Northern Ireland to a secret conference in Inverness. Top of the agenda at that meeting was a discussion on the possible loyalist paramilitary response to the forthcoming IRA ceasefire, which came two months later.

Among those killed was the deputy head of RUC special branch, Brian Fitzsimmons, and senior anti-terrorist officer Supt Ian Phoenix who had helped coordinate with the police and SAS the killing of seven top IRA men at Loughgall, Co Armagh in 1987. As well their immediate families among those who fought from the outset to clear the pilot's of any blame was Phoenix's widow, Susan.

Five years after the crash the government faced calls for a fresh inquiry when Computer Weekly magazine released evidence claiming to cast doubt on the reliability of the helicopter's engine control software, supporting campaigners' claims that the aircraft was at fault and not the pilots.

In February 2002 a House of Lords committee rejected the RAF's verdict and found that there were no grounds for blaming the pilots.

Deputy PM Nick Clegg offers only qualified backing for No 10's director of communications, Andy Coulson, as Speaker grants debate on newspaper phone hacking

The Downing Street communications chief Andy Coulson is under renewed pressure as it was announced that MPs will hold an emergency Commons debate about newspaper phone hacking tomorrow.

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minster, gave only qualified backing to Coulson at prime minister's questions today as Labour strived to keep the affair at the top of the political agenda.

As the Speaker, John Bercow, said he would grant a debate on phone hacking, Clegg refused to say whether he believed Coulson's insistence that he did not know about the illegal practices that took place when he was editor of the News of the World.

Taking prime minster's questions in the absence of David Cameron, who flew to France to be with his ill father today, Clegg warned Labour not to "second guess" police inquiries into fresh allegations surrounding Cameron's press chief.

Clegg cited Coulson's repeated insistence that he had no knowledge of the practice when he was editor of the paper. It was "for the police alone" to decide if a new investigation was required, Clegg told Jack Straw, the shadow justice secretary, who was leading for Labour.

Immediately after the session, Bercow said he had accepted a request from Labour former minister Chris Bryant – who is one of the MPs whose mobile phones is alleged to have been hacked – for a debate tomorrow, in which Coulson's role is likely to come under further scrutiny. .

Senior Liberal Democrats were highly critical of the former NoW editor before joining the Tories in government, with Chris Huhne, now climate change and energy secretary, publicly suggesting before the general election that Coulson was either complicit or incompetent.

Pressed by Straw today on whether he was "entirely satisfied" that Coulson had been in the dark about phone hacking at the News of the World, Clegg directed MPs to the previous statement of the No 10 communications chief, which he insisted "speaks for itself".

"Phone hacking is a very serious offence indeed. It is an outrageous invasion of privacy and it is right that two individuals were convicted and imprisoned," Clegg told MPs.

"As for Mr Coulson, he has made it very, very clear that he took responsibility for something of which he had no knowledge at the News of the World and he refutes all the allegations that have been made to the contrary."

He added: "It is now for the police, and the police alone, to decide whether new evidence has come to light which needs to be investigated."

Coulson always denied any knowledge of the illegal eavesdropping, for which the NoW's ex-royal editor, Clive Goodman, and a private detective were jailed in 2007.

But one of his former reporters, Sean Hoare, reignited the row last week by publicly claiming his boss had been aware of the activities. Senior Scotland Yard officer John Yates indicated yesterday he was likely to speak to Coulson as he considers whether to reopen the police probe.

In a further development, the Guardian reported today that a key witness has said he will testify on the phone-hacking affair, both to police and an inquiry begun by parliament.

Ross Hall, a former employee who until now has been silent, had been named in a previous MPs' inquiry as the man who transcribed swaths of hacked voicemail messages for other journalists, including the tabloid's chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck.

He told the Guardian he was willing to talk to Scotland Yard and to the home affairs select committee inquiry, which was announced by MPs yesterday.

Downing Street has stood firm on the matter, insisting that Coulson's position is not under threat and said he has the full backing of the prime minister.

Straw used the Commons' session to put pressure on Clegg by quoting Huhne's former comments in which he said that Coulson "was either complicit in criminal activity or the most incompetent editor in Fleet Street".

Straw told Clegg: "Do you expect us to believe that the only person who knew nothing about phone hacking at News of the World was the editor – the very man the prime minister has brought into the heart of the government?"

Clegg replied: "Mr Huhne and I are in complete agreement that if new evidence has come to light the police – and that is what I want and that is what I expect – will now actively look to see whether that evidence is worthy of further investigation. That is what the police are there for," Clegg retorted.

The deputy prime minister took the opportunity to claim that the first person to call Coulson to commiserate on his resignation was Labour former prime minister Gordon Brown.

"He told him not to worry, that he had done the honourable thing and that he knew he would go on to do a worthwhile job," Clegg said to laughter from the government benches.

Director of public prosecutions tells Today programme he supports idea of first and second degree murder charges

The campaign to reform murder laws has received a significant boost with the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, saying he supports the introduction of different degrees of murder charges in England and Wales.

Starmer said he would back a system akin to that in the US where people can be charged with first or second degree murder. A spokesperson has confirmed Starmer supports the proposed changes.

This brings the head of the Crown Prosecution Service into line with high-profile legal figures who have backed reform of murder laws in recent years.

In 2007 Lord Phillips, now president of the supreme court, backed proposals by reform body the Law Commission for new categories of murder.

"The Law Commission said that the object of their proposed reforms was to rationalise the general law of homicide; to produce a comprehensible and fair legal structure that non-lawyers can understand and accept. I think that their proposals go a long way to achieving that end," Phillips said.

The current law means those who intended to cause grievous bodily harm can be convicted of murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence, in the same way as those who intended to kill.

In the US a first degree conviction is reserved for those who intended to kill. Second degree murder, which in the UK would carry a discretionary life sentence, would require proof of intent to prove grievous bodily harm.

The previous Labour government rejected the proposed changes, instead reforming other areas relating to offences of provocation and "diminished responsibility" – partial defences for killings in situations of domestic violence or mental illness.

Lord Falconer, who was lord chancellor under Labour when the Law Commission proposals were rejected, said the current law was sufficient.

"The message that the law is sending out is that we are very willing to see people convicted if they are a part of gang violence – and that violence ends in somebody's death.

"Is it unfair? Well, what you've got to decide is not 'does the system lead to people being wrongly convicted?' I think the real question is do you want a law is as draconian as our law is, which says juries can convict even if you are quite a peripheral member of the gang which killed?

"And I think broadly the view of reasonable people is that you probably do need a quite draconian law in that respect."

But Ian Blair, a former Metropolitan police commissioner, said: "While murder must remain a very specific crime, with a very serious penalty attached to it, there are, and I think everybody can see it, different kinds of murder and different levels of culpability in those murders.

"I think the Americans have a very sensible idea that there are degrees of murder."

Starmer's remarks come amid continuing scrutiny on euthanasia laws, with further high-profile cases expected later this year.

Under current laws, a relative involved in someone ending their lives can be convicted of murder, which carries the mandatory life sentence.

Paul Mendelle QC said: "The problem with introducing first and second degree murder is that you still wouldn't be able to deal with mercy killing – where the person has an intent to kill and which still attracts a mandatory life sentence."

Business secretary says Barclays' appointment of Bob Diamond illustrates dangers of having retail banks with massively profitable investment arms attached to them

Vincent Cable today used concerns over the appointment of investment banker Bob Diamond as the next head of Barclays to ratchet up pressure on the Treasury to split up the "casino" and traditional banks.

The Lib Dem business secretary said Diamond's elevation illustrated the dangers to the financial system of having retail banks with massively profitable investment arms attached to them.

Cable was careful not to criticise directly the appointment of the multimillionaire head of Barclays Capital to be the group's chief executive. But he told the BBC: "It isn't my job to appoint the head of a private bank. But what this appointment illustrates is the wider policy question about how banks can be made safe, and we are worried about this combination of the casinos and the traditional banks.

"I think it does illustrate the wisdom of the government's decision to set up this banking commission to look at the structure of banks ... The whole point about that work is the government's worry about the future stability of banks where you have this combination of traditional banking being tied up with investment banks, what people have called 'casinos'."

Sources close to Cable said he had expressed concern last night that the decision to install Diamond, a high-profile investment banker who has taken home £75m in the last five years, at the top of Barclays showed the banking sector was not taking the threat of break-up seriously.

Cable, who made clear after taking ministerial office that he would take a "tough line" with parts of the UK banking system as part of the government's economic recovery plan, said Diamond's appointment illustrated the wisdom of the government's decision to set up the independent banking commission, chaired by Sir John Vickers.

The 59-year-old American, who has been with Barclays for the last 14 years, was described as the "unacceptable face of banking" by Cable's Labour predecessor, Lord Mandelson. He will replace the current chief executive, John Varley, at the end of March.

Today Cable used the appointment to press home his view of the dangers posed by high street banks having speculative investment arms attached to them.

Cable told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that although the banking crisis has slipped into the background, the country still had a problem where major banks, which present a potential risk to the British economy, underpinned by the British taxpayer.

"The whole point about that work is the government's worry about the future stability of banks where you have this combination of traditional banking being tied up with investment banks, what people have called 'casinos'.

"Diamond illustrates in a particularly graphic way what happens when you have an extremely high-paid head of an investment bank taking over one of these major international banks."

He added: "The banking commission that the chancellor and I jointly set up will hopefully be coming up with some strong conclusions about how we deal with that. I think it does illustrate the wisdom of the government's decision to set up this banking commission to look at the structure of banks."

Pressed on whether he would quit ministerial office if the commission failed to back his call for the splitting retail and investment banks, Cable insisted that he was open to the recommendations put forward when the commission reports in a few months' time.

The commission, which includes a former Barclays chief executive, Martin Taylor, has met twice and later this month is expected to set out an "issues paper," which is intended to form the basis for hearings to be held in public and private about whether breaking up the banks would reduce the risk of another taxpayer bailout of the system.

"Splitting the banks can mean different things," said Cable. "What I want to see happening and what the government is implementing is looking in a thorough way at the whole structure of banks, that's partly about making them safe, it's also about having more effective competition. There will be some recommendations coming out of the commission in a few months' time. We will wait and see what they are but the people who have been appointed to it are of the highest quality, and we shall get some good recommendations, I am sure."

Diamond's appointment prompted fury from union leaders, as the scale of the taxpayer bailout of the banking system has led to lengthening dole queues and severe cuts to public spending.

Diamond said last night that although Barclays was committed to the so-called universal banking model – with investment and retail banking in one organisation – he was also "respectful" of the commission.

The Lib Dems were vocal about the break-up of banks such as Barclays, HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland before the election and the party's treasury spokesman, Lord Oakeshott, kept up the pressure. "Diamond, with his £20m bonuses, is the unacceptable face of this bonus-driven banking," Oakeshott said. "This highlights the need to break-up and de-risk the British banking system."

Pastor Terry Jones to go ahead with Qur'an burning day despite Hillary Clinton saying plan is disrespectful and disgraceful

The gun-toting pastor at the centre of international outrage over his plans to stage a Qur'an burning day to mark the 9/11 attacks says he is determined to go ahead in the face of fierce condemnation from the Obama administration.

The Rev Terry Jones said more than 100 death threats would not put him off Saturday's event, when he plans to lead the burning of 200 copies of the Muslim holy book at his Dove World Outreach Centre in Gainesville, Florida.

"If we don't do it, when do we stop backing down?" he told ABC television. "It's something we need to do, it's a message we need to send."

He confirmed he would be armed during the event. "We are prepared to give our lives for this," he said.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, led condemnation of the planned burning, describing it as a "disrespectful, disgraceful act". Others in the administration weighed in, including Eric Holder, the attorney general, who called it idiotic and dangerous. A state department spokesman called the planned protest "un-American".

The plans have been greeted with alarm in the Middle Eastern press. Lebanon's Daily Star said they were "likely to ignite a fire of rage that could consume swathes of the globe", while United Arab Emirates paper the Khaleej Times describe the planned burning as "rabid and insane".

David Petraeus, the US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, warned of retaliatory action against US troops after protests took place in the capital Kabul at which effigies of Jones were burned alongside the American flag.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs echoed the concerns raised by Petraeus. "Any type of activity like that that puts our troops in harm's way would be a concern to this administration," Gibbs said.

Jones said he "understood" those concerns but would press ahead anyway.

"Instead of us backing down, maybe it's time to stand up. Maybe it's time to send a message to radical Islam that we will not tolerate their behaviour," he told Associated Press.

At a meal last night marking the breaking of the Ramadan fast at the state department, Clinton said: "We sit down together for this meal on a day when the news is carrying reports that a pastor down in Gainesville, Florida, plans to burn the holy Qur'an on September 11. I am heartened by the clear, unequivocal condemnation of this disrespectful, disgraceful act that has come from American religious leaders of all faiths, from evangelical Christians to Jewish rabbis as well as secular US leaders and opinion-makers.

"Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. Many of you know that in 1790, George Washington wrote to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, that this country will give 'to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance'. The real story of Islam in America can be found in this room and rooms across America. We write it tonight in the spirit of fellowship and the celebration of goodwill that is a hallmark of Ramadan. We will write it in the months and years to come as we continue to reach out to engage people around the world in a search for common ground, common understanding and common respect."

This week, hundreds of Afghans protested outside a Kabul mosque and chanted "Death to America". Members of the crowd pelted a passing US military convoy with stones before being ordered to stop by protest organisers.

On Saturday thousands of Indonesian Muslims demonstrated outside the US embassy in Jakarta and in five other cities to protest against the church's plan. Dove World made headlines last year after distributing T-shirts that said "Islam is of the Devil". The church has been denied a permit to set a bonfire but has vowed to proceed with the burning.

In a joint statement US religious leaders condemned what they described as an "anti-Muslim frenzy" in America. They said this had been whipped up in part by "misinformation and outright bigotry" in response to plans to build an Islamic community centre and mosque close to the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York.

On the plans to burn the Qu'ran the leaders, including Washington Roman Catholic archbishop emeritus Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Rabbi David Saperstein, head of the Union for Reform Judaism, and Dr Michael Kinnamon of the National Council of Churches said they were "appalled by such disrespect for a sacred text".

Party to celebrate publication of former PM's autobiography, A Journey, is cancelled after anti-war campaigners prepared to stage demonstrations

Tony Blair today cancelled a second event scheduled to mark the launch of his memoirs after anti-war campaigners prepared to mount a protest against him.

The former prime minister confirmed his decision to postpone tonight's event at the Tate Modern gallery in central London as it emerged that his autobiography, A Journey, has secured record sales since being launched last week.

Blair said he had decided to put off the party because an event that was supposed to be a nice occasion had been ruined by the threat of protesters frightening guests.

In a broadside to anti-war campaigners, Blair declared himself unfazed by his detractors by claiming that "those who shout loudest do not deserve to be heard most".

The former prime minister's efforts to promote his book have been mired in controversy as protesters threatened to derail a series of events.

In the latest instalment, a spokeswoman for Blair's publishers, Random House, announced this morning that party guests had been told the Tate Modern event had been cancelled.

The decision comes just days after Blair announced he was cancelling a signing session due to be held at the Waterstone's book store in London's Piccadilly this lunchtime, amid concerns over planned protests.

The former prime minister said on Monday that he did not want to subject the public to the "inevitable hassle" protests would cause or use up police resources keeping order at the event.

A book signing in Dublin a few days earlier had seen eggs and shoes hurled by protesters, with one individual attempting to make a citizen's arrest.

Despite the protest, Blair's book has proved a hit with readers, selling 92,060 copies in its first four days on sale last week, according to Nielsen BookScan – the best ever opening week sale for an autobiography since the book sales monitor's records began, in 1998.

It put the former prime minister well ahead of Lord Mandelson, whose book, The Third Man, sold 14,960 copies in three days when it was published in July.

Instead of today's book signing, Blair opted for an appearance on ITV's This Morning sofa with Phillip Schofield and Holly Willoughby to talk about his book.

He explained his decision to postpone tonight's event, which he said would go ahead at another time.

"It's sad in a way because in a sense you should have the right to sign books or see your friends if you want to but it was going to cause so much hassle for people at the party tonight," he said. "Friends, some of whom are not political at all. I don't mind going through protesters, I've done that all through my political life but for other people it can be unpleasant and a bit frightening. It's supposed to be a nice occasion so if it's not going to be that there are more important things to do."

He said the prospect of protesters had never deterred him from writing the book.

"One of the things you learn in politics, in life I think, is that those who shout loudest do not deserve to be heard most. I find most people, even if they disagree with me very strongly, are reasonable and pleasant and say I totally disagree with you about this or that, but they don't feel the need to throw something at you. You have to be very careful of mistaking those types of people for the whole of the country."

Police beating victim reportedly to marry Cynthia Kelley after calling her on impulse four months ago - years after they last met

Rodney King, the man whose beating in 1991 by Los Angeles police sparked riots in which dozens died and blocks of the city were torched, is reportedly to marry a member of the jury that awarded him $3.8m (£2.5m) compensation three years after the assault.

According to the Radar online magazine, King is to marry Cynthia Kelley after calling her on impulse four months ago - years after they last met.

The couple, both then married to other people, shared a pizza the day after the 1994 compensation case, and began a relationship, but later broke up. Kelley was the only black juror, and said at the time that other jurors had suggested $100,000 would be appropriate.

In 1991, after a car chase through the San Fernando valley, King was dragged from his car by four white police officers and repeatedly beaten with clubs, kicked and punched as he lay on the road. The assault was captured on video by a passing amateur cameraman, and horrified the American public when it was televised.

When, the following year, all four police officers were acquitted, the city erupted: in six nights of rioting, 53 people died, thousands were injured, and the damage caused to property was estimated at over $1bn.

In a tearful television interview during the riots, King pleaded: "Can't we all just get along, can we stop making it horrible for the older people and the kids?"

King is now a grandfather, with three grown up children. In the years since the assault he has battled alcoholism, and appeared in a reality television series following rehab programmes, but in an interview last year he said: "My life is finally at a resting point."

This week he told Radar: "She [Kelley] is a godsend, a blessing in my life."

Coroner is among those denied access to results of examination commissioned by lawyers for policeman who hit G20 bystander

A separate postmortem examination into the death of Ian Tomlinson carried out on behalf of the policeman filmed hitting him at the G20 protests last year has been withheld from the authorities, it has emerged.

The autopsy, the third on the newspaper seller's body, was jointly conducted by the forensic pathologist Ben Swift at the request of lawyers for PC Simon Harwood, who is shown striking Tomlinson in a video revealed by the Guardian.

Harwood's lawyers have withheld Swift's report from the Crown Prosecution Service and the Independent Police Commission, citing legal privilege, according to the BBC.

The CPS confirmed it had not been handed a copy of Swift's report by Ben Swift as it was defence material, so the CPS was "not entitled to see it".

Paul Matthews, the City of London coroner who carried out the inquest into Tomlinson's death, was also denied access, the BBC reported.

"I have not so far obtained sight of it," Matthews said of the report. "I simply wish to marker down that I wish to pursue this."

The BBC said Matthews was pursuing gaining access to the report and claimed he had "doubts" about the decision to withhold it.

Matthews has defended the use of the controversial pathologist Freddy Patel, who carried out the first inquest. Last week Patel was suspended from practice for three months by the General Medical Council after being found guilty of misconduct in three earlier autopsy cases.

Matthews said he was unaware of the proceedings against Patel when he was appointed. "He was a fully registered medical practitioner and was also on the Home Office list of accredited forensic pathologists," he said in a statement.

Patel said Tomlinson died of a heart attack. Swift's joint examination and a second autopsy suggested he died from internal bleeding.

In July Keir Starmer QC, the director of public prosecutions, announced that no charges would be brought against Harwood, citing complications surrounding Patel's evidence.

Ryanair chief Michael O'Leary will seek permission from aviation authorities to have just one pilot on shorter flights

Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary wants to use just one pilot per flight as part of his ongoing drive to save costs at the budget airline.

O'Leary said he intends to write to aviation authorities for permission to use only one pilot per flight because he believes co-pilots are unnecessary in modern jets, the Financial Times reported today.

The airline boss, who has previously considered standing tickets on flights, as well as charging for the use of toilets, conceded that two pilots would be needed on long-haul flights, but said on shorter trips that flight attendants could do the job.

In an interview he said the second pilot was only there to "make sure the first fella doesn't fall asleep and knock over one of the computer controls".

He backed up his comments by adding that trains were allowed to have one driver even though this could conceivably cause a crash in the event of a heart attack. He said: "It could save the entire industry a fortune. In 25 years with over about 10 million flights we've had one pilot who suffered a heart attack in flight and he landed the plane."

But industry experts have labelled the proposal "unwise". A spokesman for the British Airline Pilots Association said: "This is just a bid for publicity. His suggestion is unsafe and his passengers would be horrified."

O'Leary frequently courts controversy with his attempts to cut costs at Ryanair. This year he raised the baggage charge for the summer holiday season and, following the volcano ash cloud crisis, initially capped the level of compensation to passengers. He later bowed to EU pressure and agreed to pay out costs to customers affected by the eruption.