GRANT SHAPPS has scored a major victory after a High Court ruling stopped all protesters from occupying the busy roads surrounding the Port of Dover.
Read more here Daily Express :: UK Feed
GRANT SHAPPS has scored a major victory after a High Court ruling stopped all protesters from occupying the busy roads surrounding the Port of Dover.
Read more here Daily Express :: UK Feed
Last Updated: 20/07/21 12:17pm
The head of the organising committee for the Tokyo Olympics has not ruled out a last-minute cancellation of the Games.
Rising coronavirus cases have presented organisers with mounting challenges, with nine more positive cases in the last 24 hours bringing the total number of people affected to 67.
Asked at a news conference if the Games, which are due to open on Friday, might still be cancelled, Toshiro Muto said he would keep an eye on infection numbers and hold discussions with organisers if necessary.
“We can’t predict what will happen with the number of coronavirus cases. So we will continue discussions if there is a spike in cases,” said Muto.
“We have agreed that based on the coronavirus situation, we will convene five-party talks again. At this point, the coronavirus cases may rise or fall, so we will think about what we should do when the situation arises.”
Covid-19 cases are rising in Tokyo rising and the Games, postponed last year because of the pandemic, will be held without spectators.
Japan this month decided that participants would compete in empty venues to minimise the risk of further infections.
The opening ceremony will also take place without major Olympic sponsors, dealing another blow to a slimmed-down Games as more athletes tested positive for the coronavirus.
Muto, a former top financial bureaucrat with close ties to Japan’s ruling party, is known for his careful choice of words, while organisers are facing a domestic public angry about coronavirus restrictions and concerned over a possible spike in cases triggered by Games attendees arriving from abroad.
This post originally posted here SkySports | News
This post originally posted here CNN.com – RSS Channel – HP Hero
WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court ruling that went against the NCAA could open the door to schools using unlimited benefits tied to education to recruit top athletes.
The NCAA’s loss in a 9-0 decision will not directly lead to play-for-pay in college athletics, but it did clear a path for future legal challenges that could be even more impactful.
The original lawsuit brought by former West Virginia running back Shawne Alston challenged the NCAA’s right to cap compensation to Division I football and basketball players at the value of a scholarship.
The lower court’s decision went against the NCAA. In a narrow ruling, a judge said the NCAA could not cap benefits to athletes that are tied directly to education. The court left it up to the NCAA to define educational benefits but the NCAA appealed and lost.
The case was the first involving the NCAA heard by the Supreme Court since 1984.
They are some of the costs associated with being a student, costs a school could pick up for an athlete. Examples include a study abroad program, a paid internship or an athlete’s school computer.
The ruling doesn’t mandate that schools pay athletes. It only prevents the NCAA from standing in the way of educational benefits.
Schools and even conferences could impose their own rules or caps, but plaintiffs’ lawyers believe teams competing against each other on the field will look for ways to gain an advantage through these benefits and recruits will capitalize on the market.
Schools could start offering athletes in those high profile sports things like internships, laptops or even cash bonuses tied to academics or graduation effective immediately.
Still, it is more likely that conferences, schools and even the NCAA will take time to clarify the original ruling and come up with some guidelines and definitions about what is permitted. Overall value, though, cannot be capped.
The lower court’s ruling itself is not the NCAA’s biggest headache. The Supreme Court’s decision also left the NCAA open to more legal challenges and stripped it of one of its best defenses.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority decision that the 1984 Board of Regents case, which went against the NCAA but also gave the association some cover against antitrust law, no longer need be adhered to by courts in future cases.
“It’s certainly notable that there was unanimous opinion that Board of Regents does not support the NCAA’s restrictions on athlete compensation,” said Gabe Feldman, director of Tulane’s sports law program. “That was the key argument in every case the NCAA had made (in court). Not only that Board of Regents supports it, but that Board of Regents means that all NCAA rules are essentially legal.
“That’s the language they were hoping to get from the court. Instead they got that the language means nothing. Board of Regents provides no support.”
Feldman said unless the NCAA can get some type of antitrust exemption from Congress the lawsuits might never stop. The NCAA has already been asking for protection from Congress in the form of a federal law that would regulate the way athletes can be compensated for use of their names, images and likenesses.
“The silver lining for the NCAA — it’s a faint silver lining — is that this theoretically strengthens their argument in Congress that if they don’t get an antitrust exemption they’re going to get sued into oblivion,” Feldman said. “And it’s only a matter of time before antitrust law destroys the NCAA’s vision of amateurism.”
This post originally appeared on CBS8 – Sports
After the court’s decision, the Lovings lived quietly in their native Virginia with their three children until Richard Loving’s death in a 1975 car crash. Mildred Loving, critically injured in that same crash, never remarried and largely shunned publicity.
She granted a rare interview to The Associated Press in 2007, the 40th anniversary of her legal victory, and died the following year.
In observance of the 50th anniversary of the landmark Loving decision, The Associated Press is republishing its last interview with Mildred Loving, by reporter Dionne Walker.
Reporters no longer beat a path to the modest white house just over the Caroline County border – and that’s fine with its owner, a soft-spoken 67-year-old who never wanted the fame that her marriage brought her.
Born Mildred Jeter, she’s mostly known by the name she took when she – a Black woman living in segregated Virginia – dared to break the rules by marrying a white man named Richard Loving.
The union landed the Lovings in jail, and then before the U.S. Supreme Court, and finally in the history books; 40 years ago Tuesday, the court ruled in favor of the couple, overturning laws prohibiting interracial unions and changing the face of America.
Mildred Loving is a matriarch to thousands of mixed couples now sprinkled in every city. But she hardly considers herself a hero – just a girl who once fell in love with a boy.
“It wasn’t my doing,” Loving told The Associated Press, in a rare interview. “It was God’s work.”
While the rest of the Jim Crow South struggled to divide the races in the early ’50s, Blacks and whites in tiny Central Point had long been intertwined. They worked together on farms, raising chickens and tobacco. And often, they were intimate, explained Edward Clarke, who grew up in the town an hour outside Richmond, today little more than vast fields, ragtag homes and weed-choked farm houses.
Standing in the hilly cemetery which Richard Loving is buried, he swept his hand out over the markers reading Jeter, Byrd and Fortune – Black folks, he explained, many so pale they could pass for white.
“The white people were just like the Black people,” said Clarke, a Black man. “You lived and survived … it was a sharing thing.”
It was in this setting that a skinny 11-year-old nicknamed “Bean” met a 17-year-old boy who was a family friend, according to Phyl Newbeck, a Vermont author who detailed the case in the 2004 book, “Virginia Hasn’t Always Been for Lovers.”
Over the years, friendship led to courtship – but their relationship took an abrupt turn when an 18-year-old Mildred became pregnant.
“We’re talking the early ’50s, when an illegitimate child was far more of a stigma,” Newbeck said. “I don’t think Richard wanted her to have to bear that.”
And so, they drove some 80 miles to Washington, D.C., in 1958, married and returned to Central Point to start a new life.
“I think he thought (if) we were married, they couldn’t bother us,” Mildred said.
Within a month, they were in jail.
Now 84, then-Sheriff Garnett Brooks vividly recalls bursting into the Lovings’ home at 2 a.m., rousing the couple out of their sleep and hauling them off to face the law. Word of their marriage – nobody’s sure who complained – had reached the commonwealth’s attorney.
“He told me to go and check on them and if they are (married), arrest them,” said Brooks, who insists the case wasn’t about race but about illegal cohabitation. “I told him I’d be glad to do it.”
A 28-year-old Phil Hirschkop was just a few months out of law school when he overheard a professor discussing the Lovings with another lawyer, Bernard Cohen.
It was 1964, and the Lovings had spent the past few years living in exile in Washington after being convicted on charges of “cohabitating as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth,” according to their indictments. Laws banning racially mixed marriages existed in at least 17 states.
The couple had avoided a year in jail by agreeing to a sentencing mandating, “both accused leave Caroline County and the state of Virginia at once, and do not return together or at the same time to said county and state for a period of 25 years.”
They got around it, recalls University of Georgia professor and family friend Robert Pratt, by riding back in separate cars and meeting up.
The frustrated young wife had written to then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who referred her to the ACLU for help returning to their Virginia home permanently. Cohen filed a motion to vacate the 1959 sentence against the couple, but hit a dead end when the courts refused to respond.
American courts had proven tough on race-mixing in the past: A handful of cases similar to the Lovings’ had come up before in other places, but were stuck in a thicket of state-sanctioned racism and red tape.
But lawmakers had just passed the Civil Rights Act, and across the South, Blacks were defying Jim Crows’ hold.
Hirschkop was convinced the Supreme Court was ready for change, too – but the right case had to come before the justices, free of any legal loopholes the state could seize upon. The Lovings presented such a case.
Hirschkop argued that the laws must treat each citizen equally, and that “when a law is based on race, it is immediately suspect and the burden is shifted to the state to show there is a compelling interest to have that sort of racial differentiation.”
On June 12, 1967, the court agreed.
“The country was ready, the Supreme Court was ready …” Hirschkop said. “They were going to do the right thing.”
Richard, by all accounts a stoic, blue-collar man content to let Mildred do the talking, moved his family into a small house on Passing Road, and tried to live happily ever after.
That ended when a drunken driver struck their car in 1975, killing Richard and costing Mildred her right eye. The small cemetery where he is buried is just a few minutes from their home.
Over the years, Mildred has granted few interviews, letting others tell her story through books, articles and a Showtime film, “Mr. and Mrs. Loving.”
“Not much of it was very true,” she said on a recent Thursday afternoon. “The only part of it right was I had three children.”
Her hands are curled by arthritis and her right eye is just a lidded hollow now. Still, Mildred’s face lights up as she talks about Richard. She thinks about him every day.
Each June 12, Loving Day events around the country mark the advances of mixed-race couples. Mildred doesn’t pay much attention to the grassroots celebrations.
Mostly she spends time enjoying her family, two dogs, and the countryside she fought so fiercely to again call home.
She wishes her husband was there to enjoy it with her.
“He used to take care of me,” said Mildred Loving. “He was my support, he was my rock.”
Video above is from previous post.
Copyright © 2021 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
This post originally appeared on ABC13 RSS Feed
A Belfast High Court judge ruled the tweet from 2019 was “grossly defamatory”.
While Foster has said it caused her “upset, distress, embarrassment and humiliation”.
The celebrity doctor has said he does not have the funds to cover the libel damages with only £20,000 to his name.
Jessen shared his crowdfunding campaign on his Twitter in view of his 307,000 followers.
He penned: “I am truly overwhelmed by your generosity and kind, supportive comments.
“I read every one and they are really helping and encouraging me. (sic)
“You are all wonderful! C…”
Many have written supportive comments with their donations to his page.
“He’s helped me tremendously over the years, I’m glad I can return the favour or rather try to,” another added.
A third wrote: “Sorry you’re having to deal with this when you’re not feeling great mentally.”
However, he’s faced some backlash from Twitter users about his crowdfunding campaign.
This post originally appeared on Daily Express :: Celebrity News Feed
“It is likely that firms will no longer offer unsustainably low-priced deals to some customers.
“However, the FCA estimates that these measures will save consumers £4.2bn over 10 years, by removing the loyalty penalty and making the market work better.”
The new rules will also make it easier for consumers to cancel automatic renewals of their policies and force insurance firms to do more to consider how they offer fair value to customers.
Sheldon Mills, executive director for consumers and competition at the FCA, said: “These measures will put an end to the very high prices paid by many loyal customers.”
This post originally appeared on Daily Express :: Life and Style Feed
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, confronting the consequences of its ruling last year that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation, said on Wednesday that it would temporarily block a decision from an Oklahoma court that threw out a state conviction of a death row inmate. The state court had said the Supreme Court’s ruling required the move.
The court’s three liberal members — Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — dissented from the Supreme Court’s order, which gave no reasons and said it would remain in force while the court considered whether to hear the state’s appeal.
But the order suggested that the court might reconsider or narrow its 5-to-4 decision last year in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which said that a vast chunk of Oklahoma, including much of Tulsa, the state’s second-biggest city, was made up of Indian reservations. The decision barred prosecutions of Native Americans on those lands by state or local law enforcement, saying they must instead face justice in federal or tribal courts.
The decision featured an unusual coalition, with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joining the court’s four-member liberal bloc, which included the three dissenters on Wednesday and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September.
Justice Ginsburg’s replacement by Justice Amy Coney Barrett changed the dynamic on the court and may affect the sweep of last year’s ruling.
In a dissent last year, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. warned that the court’s decision would undermine Oklahoma’s criminal justice system.
“The state’s ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out,” he wrote.
The new case involved such a conviction, of Shaun M. Bosse, who was sentenced to death for the murders of Katrina Griffin and her two young children. He stabbed Ms. Griffin and her eight-year-old boy to death, locked her six-year-old girl in a closet and set the house on the fire.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest court for criminal matters, threw out Mr. Bosse’s conviction under the McGirt decision. That meant he would be transferred to federal custody, and federal prosecutors have said they would retry him.
The state court gave state prosecutors 45 days to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mike Hunter, Oklahoma’s attorney general, asked the Supreme Court for a further stay while his office pursued an appeal.
Mr. Bosse is not Native American, but his victims were. Mr. Hunter said the distinction mattered, though earlier cases had determined that crimes committed on reservations by or against Indians could not be prosecuted by state authorities.
Mr. Hunter told the justices that Mr. Bosse’s case was one of hundreds if not thousands in the pipeline. In many of them, Mr. Hunter wrote, retrials would not be possible given statutes of limitations, the loss of evidence and limited resources.
Lawyers for Mr. Bosse said that granting a stay in his case would not affect those other cases. They added that the consequences of the McGirt decision could not have come as a surprise to the state’s lawyers, as they had predicted them in their arguments in that case.
Author: Adam Liptak
This post originally appeared on NYT > U.S. News
In a major setback to the EU‘s efforts to get more taxes from tech companies, Europe’s second highest court has ruled that Amazon does not have to pay €250million (£215 million) in back taxes to Luxembourg. Europe’s General Court overturned a 2017 ruling by the European Commission, which concluded that a tax deal between Amazon and the government of Luxembourg in 2006 amounted to illegal state support. 15 years ago, Luxembourg convinced Amazon to shift its collection of profits across much of Europe to the Grand Duchy.
The court now said the competition regulators had failed to prove that Amazon received an illegal advantage from the tax rulings, adding that the Commission was “incorrect in several respects”.
The online retailer welcomed the decision and said in a statement: “We welcome the Court’s decision, which is in line with our long-standing position that we followed all applicable laws and that Amazon received no special treatment.
“We’re pleased that the Court has made this clear, and we can continue to focus on delivering for our customers across Europe.”
The ruling is a serious blow to the Commission’s efforts to curtail what it sees as abusive tax structures perpetrated by multinational enterprises (MNEs).
The ruling is a serious blow to the Commission’s efforts to curtail what it sees as abusive tax structures perpetrated by multinational enterprises (MNEs) .
According to financial columnist and author Matthew Lynn, though, it also highlights two significant problems within the EU.
He explained: “The first is that, as so often, the EU is engaged in a power grab.
“It harbours ambitions for centralised control of tax, and corporate taxation in particular, but its members won’t agree to that.
“So instead, it uses state aid rules, arguing that tax breaks amount to a subsidy.
“Of course, that is nonsense.
“Sovereign states are perfectly entitled to set their own taxes, and a lower rate is simply fair competition, not state aid.
“The courts are always going to uphold that because, well, that’s what the law says.”
The second problem, Mr Lynn wrote, is that the EU operates increasingly outside the rule of law itself.
He added: “It likes to dress itself up as a rules-based organisation.
“”But increasingly – and as we saw with its bizarre decision to seize control of vaccine production – it ignores the law whenever it suits. In fact, it increasingly rules instead by bureaucratic fiat.
“It can’t even win cases in its own courts, never mind any others.
“In truth, it is an increasingly rogue organisation – but at least it won’t now have an extra £200 million from Amazon to fund its ambitions.”
The Amazon ruling was the third time that EU judges said the commission had failed to demonstrate that a multinational company benefited from state aid.
A multimillion-euro case against Starbucks coffee company was overturned in 2019.
And the Commission is appealing against a decision made at the EU’s second-highest court – the General Court – last year, that ruled in Apple’s favour.
The appeal will be heard at the European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest court.
This month, The Guardian revealed that Amazon paid no corporation tax in Luxembourg last year despite collecting record sales income of €44billion (£41bn) in its holding company in the Grand Duchy.
Nicola Sturgeon’s desperate plot to rejoin EU torpedoed by Theresa May – new analysis [INSIGHT]
Elon Musk Tweets—and Gives Crypto Markets Growing Pains [REVEALED]
Jeff Bezos could ‘rocket’ price of Dogecoin tomorrow in 24-hour ‘surge’ [EXCLUSIVE]
Those sales were collected in Luxembourg despite being for goods sold to millions of households in other European countries, including the UK.
Chiara Putaturo, Oxfam’s EU tax expert, told the publication: “Amazon has seen its profits soar during the pandemic – a record €44bn (£41bn) in European sales alone.
“Yet their tax returns filed in Luxembourg showed no tax was paid.”
An Amazon spokesperson responded to The Guardian’s findings, saying: “Amazon pays all the taxes required in every country where we operate.
“Corporate tax is based on profits, not revenues, and our profits have remained low given our heavy investments and the fact that retail is a highly competitive, low margin business.
“We’ve invested well over €78billion (£67.1bn) in Europe since 2010, and much of that investment is in infrastructure that creates many thousands of new jobs, generates significant local tax revenue, and supports small European firms.”
This post originally appeared on Daily Express :: World Feed
The judges said Depp can’t challenge the High Court’s rejection of his libel lawsuit against publisher of The Sun newspaper for labeling him a “wife beater.”
LONDON, UK — A British court on Thursday refused Johnny Depp permission to appeal a judge’s ruling that he assaulted ex-wife Amber Heard.