A STUDENT who got her friend sacked from Disney World by sending the company a racist e-mail in her name escaped punishment yesterday.

Samantha Mitchell, 20, hacked into the computer of her friend, Linzi Snedden, after she was thrown out of the Aberdeen flat they shared following an argument.

The letter read: “I cannae wait to go. Though will I be working with any niggers? Dinnae mind working with them as long as they don’t touch me. Can you imagine that?”

The shamed immunology student previously plead guilty to an offence under the misuse of computers act at Aberdeen Sheriff Court.

Sentence was deferred for six months for her to be of good behaviour and yesterday she was admonished by sheriff David Hall.

At an earlier hearing, the fiscal depute, Mhairi Morrison, told the court: “The accused had sent the e-mail from the computer address to another friend and also Disney World.

“During March the complainer received a call from a representative of Disney World informing her that as a result of the e-mail, she was no longer suitable for employment.

“They then sent her a copy of the e-mail. The accused was pretending to be her friend. It indicated that she was drunk and possibly under the influence of drugs.”

The police were then contacted and questioned Mitchell.

The Aberdeen University student admitted that she had used the computer password without permission and had made the racial slur.

Ms Sneddon was later reinstated by the company.

Mitchell apologised and said she was glad her former friend had managed to get her job back.

Her defence solicitor, Ross Taggart, said: “Clearly this was a vindictive action.

“She fully accepts it was a very nasty thing to do.”

Related topic

- http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=562
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=562

BOSTON: No longer just scratchy hemp frocks for hippies, organic clothes are riding the green fashion craze into consumers closets this spring.

Looking to capitalize on the popularity of eco-conscious products that have gained mainstream acceptance in grocery stores and car dealers, merchants from HM to Barneys New York are hawking new collections of organic garments.

“All the retailers are rushing to organic. You cant afford not to. It appeals to the two biggest markets: youth and the baby boomers,” said Marshal Cohen, chief retail analyst at NPD Group, a Port Washington, New York, research firm. “Its cool to care today. Five years ago, it was self-indulgence. Now its self-indulgence with concern.”

Nonfood organic items, such as clothing and sheets, are the second-fastest-growing category of all organic products, with sales jumping to $160 million in 2005 from $85 million in 2003, according to the most recent figures from the Organic Trade Association, in Greenfield, Massachusetts.

Besides using organic cotton, merchants are rolling out garments made from soy, corn, and bamboo.

Organic fibers, including cotton, come from farms that use soil without pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and meet all U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations for organic farming, said Holly Givens of the Organic Trade Association.

The group has 1,500 members, including farmers and retailers, in the organic agriculture industry in North America. If livestock such as sheep are involved, then the animals eat organic feed and are required to have a certain amount of grazing time, among other conditions.

Current federal organic regulations do not cover how fibers are processed once they leave the farm. New voluntary global standards call for goods to have 95 percent organic fiber and restrict other details, such as the type of dyes and finishes allowed, the types of materials used to make buttons and zippers, and the labeling of the finished goods.

The appeal of organic clothes is less obvious than of other products, such as fruit and vegetables, which help consumers avoid ingesting foods cultivated with pesticides and chemical fertilizers. And hybrid cars win fans with promises of better mileage and less pollution.

There are no proven health benefits, however, with organic clothes, although some merchants, including American Apparel, say individuals with skin allergies prefer organic garments, because they are less likely to have an allergic reaction.

“Choosing organic cotton sends a message that shoppers value cotton produced without the use of toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers,” Givens said. “Those farm chemicals can enter the air we breathe and the water we depend on.”

Organic cotton makes up a tiny portion of all cotton produced, and some brands are charging a premium for their eco-friendly garments.

Moral Fervor, a New York clothing line, is offering T-shirts made from corn, with a suggested retail price of $83. Paige OBrien, owner of Dunia in Maynard, a store that features organic clothes and other products, has yet to sell any of the Moral Fervor shirts she stocked last month.

Moral Fervor says the corn garments are costly to make, requiring special machines for dying, drying, and printing.

“You have to buy into the concept,” OBrien said. “Organic clothes can be a little bit of a tougher sell when people ask, What am I going to get out of it? Its an education process.”

Barneys New York is giving consumers an added incentive to buy its pricey products: The retailer is donating a percentage of all sales to One Percent For the Planet, an environmental organization. Barneys partnered with organic-cotton company Loomstate to start an exclusive apparel line this spring that includes a $145 organic cotton hooded Henley sweatshirt and a $125 organic cotton halter dress with flower print.

The company is also planning a Christmas campaign: “A Green Holiday!” It will focus on products that are environmentally restorative, said Julie Gilhart, Barneys fashion director.

Cheap-chic merchant HM unveiled this month its first organic collection.

It includes lines for women, children, and infants. The Swedish retailer dabbled with organic in the 1990s, but a spokeswoman, Lisa Sandberg, said that the lack of consumer awareness and high costs of organic cotton derailed that effort.

The company, which used about 30 tons of organic cotton in 2006, estimates it will use 600 tons this year. The new collection includes a $34.90 aubergine tunic dress and $59.50 jeans. Over the past decade, Sandberg said, customers have become much more concerned with the impact garments make on the environment and that such awareness is probably here to stay.

“Everywhere I look there seems to be new lines popping up that are eco-conscious,” said Lily Lin, 38, of Acton, who recently bought soy T-shirts at Dunia. “If I put it on and it feels nice and I look at the tag and it says organic cotton, then Im sold. Americans have so much buying power, and its important for us to make conscious choices.”

It sounded like an economic clash of the titans. In one corner: Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan “the Maestro” Greenspan, who warned on Feb. 26 that the U.S. economy could stumble into a recession by yearend. And in the other: current Fed chief Ben “the Professor” Bernanke, whose soothing words helped the markets rebound two days later.

Investors might have had ringside seats, but they were also the ones who took a beating. The day of Greenspan’s bearish blow stocks couldn’t hold their ground, despite the biggest leveraged buyout deal in history—a $31.8 billion bid for Texas power company TXU (http://www.businessweek.com/ticker/). Then on Feb. 27, a 9% plunge in China’s stock markets combined with economic worries to deal a one-two punch that sent the Dow Jones industrial average to its biggest point drop since Sept. 17, 2001 (see BusinessWeek.com, 2/28/07, ).

Dig a little deeper, though, and there’s a different story. While investors may have to get used to possible tension between the present Fed chief’s statements and those of his legendary predecessor, they also need to read beyond the headlines. The opinions of Bernanke and Greenspan on the economy probably aren’t as different as you think. More Upbeat

First, Greenspan hasn’t forecast a recession. What he did Feb. 26 was respond to a question by saying it was “possible” the U.S. economy would go into recession in the second half of 2007. The retired Fed boss also indicated it would be “very precarious” to try to predict so far into the future, and noted that most economists don’t forecast a recession. Still, he declined to rule one out.

Bernanke’s statements don’t necessarily contradict that position. On Feb. 28, Bernanke told the House Budget Committee he could see no single factor that caused the market’s pullback a day earlier. However the slump didn’t change policymakers’ overall view of an economy with “moderate growth going forward,” the Fed chief said (see BusinessWeek.com, 3/1/07, ).

In other words, short-term traders probably took Greenspan’s comments out of context. “I would be surprised if there was a significant difference in opinion on the likely path of the economy between Bernanke and Greenspan,” says Conrad DeQuadros, senior economist at Bear Stearns (http://www.businessweek.com/ticker/), noting that Greenspan’s other recent comments have actually been more upbeat, not less, than Bernanke’s. “If you were to ask any economist if there was a possibility of recession, they’re going to say yes.” Hogging the Spotlight?

That’s because the probability of a recession is never zero. In other words, the market may have been reacting to Greenspan’s comments in the manner of Jim Carrey’s goofy protagonist in 1994 movie Dumb & Dumber. Told the odds he will end up with actress Lauren Holly’s character are one-in-a-million, Carrey lights up: “So you’re saying there’s a chance!”

At the same time, Greenspan’s outspokenness remains unusual for a former head of the world’s top central bank. A year after erstwhile Fed chief Paul Volcker stepped down in 1987, he wasn’t making similar market-moving statements. By contrast, Greenspan remains much in demand on the public speaking circuit and has seized the spotlight with other economic pronouncements since his retirement. The highly visible former chairman could prove a challenge for his successor even when their outlooks don’t widely differ (see BusinessWeek.com, 2/14/07, ).

“For the lifecycle of most people on the Street, Greenspan’s words will always carry weight,” says Peter Rodriguez, a Darden Graduate School of Business economist and one of Bernanke’s former students. “If you’re Bernanke, what you would hope is that you will grow to fill those shoes in such a way that investors begin to listen at least as much to you as to him.” Coincidence?

There’s little else Bernanke can do about the other Fed eminence in his midst, some economists observe. “It’s certainly the case that it’s possible for people outside the central bank to make central bankers’ jobs harder or easier,” says Stephen Cecchetti, a professor at Brandeis International Business School. “That’s life in the big city.”

This time, any difference between Greenspan’s remarks and Bernanke’s doesn’t seem to have left the market with too much lasting damage. “It just so happens that [Greenspan] made one comment that ends up being right in front of a big stock market move,” says Charles Jones, a finance professor at Columbia Business School. “I think that’s more coincidence than anything.”

Stocks recovered modestly on Feb. 28. The Dow bounced 0.43% to 12,268.63, just 1.6% below where it ended in 2006 (see BusinessWeek.com, 2/28/07, ). Whether the market can make up more lost ground will depend more on corporate earnings and the extent of the housing market’s weakness than on a war of words between two central bankers—no matter which one comes up with the snappier sound bite.