Location

first_imgJoint Base Andrews is located in the Prince Georges County in the state of Maryland, approximately 10 miles outside the Washington, D.C. city limits and 15 miles from the state of Virginia. The base is physically located in the town of Camp Springs MD, and is bordered by four other towns (Clinton, Upper Marlboro, Town of Morningside, and Forestville). If you are unable to live in on base housing at Joint Base Andrews, urban, suburban, small town, and country housing options are all within reasonable commuting distance of Joint Base Andrews. The base operator’s phone number is 301-981-1110 or DSN 312-981-1110.last_img read more

Read More →

Wisconsin sweeps border battle against Minnesota

first_img“It’s easy to get up for Wisconsin, there is not a lot that needs to be said, everyone shows up to the rink ready to go,” Peters said. “I hope that we can keep this energy as we move forward into Mankato next weekend.”The Gophers lost 3-2 on Saturday night after the Gophers fought back twice to even the score before Wisconsin’s Presley Norby netted the game winner with 5:16 remaining.“I thought we got better as the game went on and had opportunities to score and win the game,” Frost said. “Overall, I am really encouraged with where we are at right now.”The Badgers hopped out to a quick lead after Sophia Shaver scored a backhanded goal just 33 seconds into the game. Lindsey Agnew scored her first goal of the season from a pass behind the net to tie the game up soon after Shaver’s goal. Wellhausen put the Wisconsin (12-0-0, 6-0-0-0 WCHA)  up for the second time in the period, scoring from close range. The second period went scoreless, but in the third, Sophie Skarzynski scored her fourth goal of the season on a shot from the face-off circle from a feed by Cara Piazza. “I have played with Cara and I since I have been 10, Cara made a heads up play just one timed it,” Skarzynski said. However, the tie was short-lived as former Ms. Hockey, Presley Norby, from Minnetonka, put the Badgers up 3-2 from a pass from Maddie Rolfes. The Gophers were able to get some decent chances down the stretch, but finished short. Wisconsin sweeps border battle against MinnesotaGophers dropped the second game in OT after a series of scrums and physical play.Easton GreenForward senior Caitlin Reilly skates down the ice with puck at Ridder Arena on Sunday, Oct. 29. Max BiegertOctober 31, 2017Jump to CommentsShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via EmailPrintThere was no love lost between Minnesota and Wisconsin this weekend as they chipped and clawed at each other every chance they could get.No. 1 Wisconsin needed overtime to beat the No. 6 Gophers 2-1 on Sunday night at the Ridder Arena. Sidney Peters stopped 25 shots and Grace Zumwinkle notched her fifth goal of the year on a power play.“The battle and compete of our players, the desire they had to win that hockey game. That is everything we want from them,” said head coach Brad Frost.The Gophers once again found themselves playing from behind after Wisconsin’s Alexis Mauermann found the back of the net off a quick transition after a face-off. However, Zumwinkle’s goal pulled the game even at the 9:10 mark in the second period. That was her fifth power-play goal of the season, leading the NCAA. The game was tied at one entering the third period.The Gophers and Badgers battled all night, but at the end of regulation the score remained 1-1. Each team had chances and each goaltender stepped up. In overtime, Baylee Wellhausen became the hero for the Badgers after finding the back of the net after the puck trickled over Peters’ shoulder just 1:32 into overtime. “I just wish we could have come out with a win tonight just to make everybody feel a little better,” Frost said. “Our team is disappointed, but as coaches we are really, really proud.”Minnesota (5-4-1, 4-3-1-0 WCHA) and Badgers found themselves in a lot of scrums on Sunday night. One play in particular was when Badgers defenseman Mikaela Gardner and Sidney Peters were poking each other and Peters ended up grabbing her on the ground and prompted Gardner to commit a penalty. The game was full of intensity and for many of the young Gophers, this was their first look at what it is like to take part in the Border Battle. last_img read more

Read More →

Fans barred from attending NCAA events due to COVID-19

first_imgFans barred from attending NCAA events due to COVID-19Alex Tuthill-PreusSuper Bowl LII comes to US Bank Stadium on Feb. 4. Paul HodowanicMarch 12, 2020Jump to CommentsShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via EmailPrintNCAA President Mark Emmert announced Wednesday that all NCAA championship events for the next two months will be played without fans.This affects several Gophers sports, most notably the NCAA Wrestling Championships which is scheduled to be held at U.S. Bank Stadium March 19-21. Eight Gophers wrestlers are set to compete in the tournament. It will also affect the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments. “While I understand how disappointing this is for all fans of our sports, my decision is based on the current understanding of how COVID-19 is progressing in the United States. This decision is in the best interest of public health, including that of coaches, administrators, fans and, most importantly, our student-athletes,” Emmert said in a statement. Saturday’s Gopher women’s gymnastics meet against Oklahoma will go on as scheduled, with fans welcome to attend, a team spokesperson said.  Men’s hockey to play without fans Earlier Wednesday it was announced that the Gophers men’s hockey Big Ten semifinal at Penn State on Saturday would be played without fans in attendance.Fans who bought tickets will be offered refunds. The only people allowed to be in attendance are essential personnel as designated by Penn State, student-athletes, coaches and staff; families of participating student-athletes, coaches and staff; media and Penn State recruits.The game will be televised on Big Ten Network.This is a breaking news story and more information will be added as it becomes available.last_img read more

Read More →

UK retail property doyen Barrott steps down as CEO of Abu Dhabi’s Aldar

first_imgTo access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletterslast_img

Read More →

Bumi Armada orders Pusnes system for Kraken FPSO

first_imgMacGregor, part of Cargotec has won an order from Bumi Armada Berhad, a Malaysia-based international offshore oilfied services provider, to supply a Pusnes offloading system for a floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) conversion project.The Pusnes offloading system will be delivered by March 2015. The order is booked into the second quarter 2014 order intake.“By having Pusnes products in MacGregor’s portfolio, we are able to offer complete mooring and loading systems for floating production units,” says Francis Wong, Vice President, Segment Sales, Offshore.Related: Keppel lands Kraken FPSO dealBumi Armada are using a recently built ice-class tanker for the FPSO conversion, which will take place at Keppel Shipyard Ltd in Singapore. Once completed, FPSO Armada Kraken will have a total storage capacity of 600,000 barrels and will be deployed at the Kraken field located in the UK sector of the North Sea.“Our customer wanted to have an experienced supplier with a good track record of delivering safe and reliable offloading systems for demanding North Sea projects,” adds Erland Berntsen, Sales Manager, Offshore Loading at MacGregor. [mappress]Press Release, July 11, 2014last_img read more

Read More →

OFT’s credibility is in tatters following the failed BA price-fixing trial

first_img Julian Joshua is a cartel specialist partner at Howrey The ignominious collapse last week of the first contested prosecution by the OFT for the cartel offence (section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002) in the BA ‘Fuel Surcharge’ trial may seem like a farce, until you recall that four entirely innocent defendants had their lives blighted for four years. The OFT wanted the cartel offence, designed to punish individuals who ‘dishonestly’ fixed prices to ‘send a message’. Last week’s debacle certainly sent a message but it wasn’t the one the OFT intended. After the directed verdict of ‘not guilty’, the defendants walked from court with their ‘reputations unsullied’, while the OFT’s credibility is deservedly in tatters. Now locked in an unseemly tiff with Virgin Airlines and threatening to withdraw its whistleblower immunity, the OFT also faces demands from BA to cancel the civil fine it agreed to pay in July 2007. Once the dust has settled, what lessons can be learned? First, justice was a big winner. Defendants charged with the offence in future – if that ever happens – should have no doubt as to the fairness of the judicial process if they go for trial. The ‘undisclosed’ evidence that sunk the prosecution case would probably never have come to light if the defence had not fought tooth and nail at every turn. The OFT must conduct a rigorous self-assessment of its capacity to handle complex trials. How could it have effectively farmed out the crucial task of document disclosure to lawyers representing Virgin, the only other party in the cartel? The OFT’s contacts with its own witnesses were also filtered through batteries of Virgin lawyers. Case selection must be more consistent. Last year the OFT ducked the challenge after widespread bid-rigging was uncovered in the construction industry. A more unsuitable case for the first test run of the cartel offence than BA is hard to imagine. Had they ever been called upon to judge the ‘honesty’ of the accused according to normal moral standards, how would the jurors have viewed the ‘get out of jail free’ card handed to Virgin executives? One can only charitably assume the OFT’s judgment was clouded by the prospect of BA scalps and what it likes to call a ‘high impact outcome’. The OFT’s leniency programme, which grants blanket immunity to self-confessed criminals, needs urgent review. How can the prosecution rely as witnesses of the truth on those who have had to admit they were dishonest themselves? Leniency makes investigators lazy. More effort should be made to detect cartels by old-fashioned police methods. Cartels always leave a paper trail. Indeed, to get whistleblowers though the door at all, there must be a credible risk of being uncovered by other means, or else everyone will soon work out that if nobody talks, everybody walks. It is also clear that, for the cartel participants themselves, leniency is no panacea. From Virgin’s perspective, what may once have seemed a smart competitive move to ‘rat out’ a rival at no risk to itself – apart from lawyers’ fees – could well turn out to be a spectacular own goal. Not only could it now risk being fined itself for the alleged BA cartel; ironically it now has the finger pointed at it by Cathay Pacific alleging a totally different cartel, albeit one strenuously denied by Virgin. Immunity applications tend to set off a chain reaction, and applicants should be sure they have uncovered all their own exposure before rushing in to denounce a competitor. For its part, BA might regret its hurry to settle with the OFT and admit a civil infringement in 2007. Lawyers in ‘leniency’ cases should not be overawed into thinking that rolling over is the only viable defence strategy. Lastly, the cartel offence itself is in the frame. There is a good case for criminalising cartels, but this was not the way to do it. ‘Dishonesty’, inserted in the act by the OFT to send a ‘seriousness’ message, remains untested before a jury. It may never be. After this fiasco, the offence must be a prime candidate for David Cameron’s ‘bonfire’ of useless legislation. last_img read more

Read More →

Human rights

first_img Carnduff v Rock [2001] All ER (D) 151 (May) considered; Kennedy v United Kingdom (Application No 26839/05) [2010] All ER (D) 224 (May) considered. Decision of Court of Appeal [2010] All ER (D) 08 (May) Reversed. The employee was employed as an immigration officer by the Home Office. In February 2003, he received the necessary security clearance. In August 2006, he was suspended from duty on basic pay, while consideration was given to the withdrawal of his security clearance. In December, his clearance was withdrawn. His internal appeal against that decision was dismissed, and his further appeal to the Security Vetting Appeals Panel was unsuccessful. The background for those decision was the arrest of the employee’s brother and cousin during an investigation into a suspected plot to mount a terrorist attack on transatlantic flights. The employee’s cousin was convicted in 2008 of various offences in relation to that plot. No information suggested that the employee himself had been involved in the terrorism plot. The employee brought a complaint before the employment tribunal alleging that his security clearance as an immigration officer had been withdrawn in circumstances involving direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion, and that that was contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976 (the 1976 Act) and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, SI 2003/1660 (the 2003 Regulations). He stated at the outset that he had been advised that his suspension and the withdrawal of his security clearance had been because of his perceived association with certain relatives or associates of relatives suspected of association with terrorist activities and the risk of their attempting to exert influence on him to abuse his position. He denied any such association or risk. In July 2007, he provided particulars which alleged, inter alia, that the Home Office had relied upon stereotypical assumptions about him and/or Muslims and/or individuals of Pakistani origin such as susceptibility to undue influence, coercion or ‘brainwashing’ and had indirectly discriminatory security policies, procedures and methods of investigation. The Home Office contended that there had been no such discrimination and that the decisions taken in relation to the respondent had been taken for the purposes of safeguarding national security. Rule 54(2) of Sch 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1861 (the 2004 Regulations) provided for the adoption of a closed material procedure if the tribunal so ordered. Schedule 2 provided for the use of special advocates, whose role was to represent a claimant’s interests so far as possible in relation to the aspects closed to him and his representatives. The tribunal made an order for a closed material procedure, directing that the employee and his representatives should be excluded from proceedings when closed evidence or documents were being considered. The employee’s challenge to the tribunal’s order for a closed material procedure was dismissed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal ([2009] All ER (D) 100 (Nov)), and the Court of Appeal, but it was declared that art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ‘requires [the appellant] to be provided with the allegations being made against him in sufficient detail to enable him to give instructions to his legal team so that those allegations can be challenged effectively’, even if that put the Home Office ‘in the invidious position of having to make difficult decisions about disclosure and whether or how a claim is to be defended’. The Home office appealed to the Supreme Court against the declaration and the respondent cross-appealed against the conclusion that a closed material procedure was permissible. The employee contended that r 54(2) of the 2004 Regulations was contrary to European law and/or the European Convention on Human Rights. He submitted that it was in conflict with European Legal Principles governing discrimination, contained in the European Treaties and in the Race and Employment Directives, to which the 1996 Act, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Employment Equality Regulations all had to be read, at least as far as possible, as being subject. The appeal would be allowed (Lord Kerr dissenting). The cross-appeal would be dismissed. (1) The demands of national security might necessitate and under European convention law justify a system for handling and determining complaints under which an applicant was, for reasons of national security, unable to know the secret material by reference to which his or her complaint was determined. The critical questions under the convention were whether the system was necessary and whether it contained sufficient safeguards. However, subject to satisfactory answers on those questions, national security considerations might justify a closed material procedure, closed evidence and, furthermore, a blanket decision leaving the precise basis of the determination unclear (see [36] of the judgment). The legitimacy of closed hearings and of the use of a special advocate were matters of procedural law. Procedure was primarily a matter for national law. It was, however, a basic principle of European Union law that national law should provide effective legal protection, by establishing a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensured respect for the relevant right. The question was whether the closed material procedure authorised by United Kingdom law provided effective legal protection, by establishing a system of legal remedies and procedures to ensure respect for the relevant rights conferred by the 1976 Act and the 2003 Regulations in implementation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the two directives. The principles of European law which arose for consideration in the instant case were clear. In particular, there had to be effective legal protection in respect of the rights not be discriminated against which the respondent had invoked, and, so far as guidance was necessary, it was to be found for the relevant purposes in the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Rights. The principles which the European Court of Human Rights would apply in the area of national security had been confirmed by the decision in Kennedy v United Kingdom ([2010] All ER (D) 224 (May)). In the circumstances, the use of a closed material procedure before the tribunal had been lawful (see [15], [18], [61] of the judgment). Accordingly, the cross appeal would be dismissed (see [62] of the judgment). Robin Allen QC and Paul Troop (instructed by Russell Jones & Walker) Solicitors for the employee. James Eadie QC and Catherine Callaghan (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Home Office. Kennedy v United Kingdom (Application No 26839/05) [2010] All ER (D) 224 (May) applied; Esbester v United Kingdom (Application 18601/91) 18 EHRR CD 72 considered; Leander v Sweden (Application 9248/81) 9 EHRR 433 considered; Unibet (London) Ltd v Justitiekanslern: C-432/05 [2007] All ER (D) 217 (Mar) applied. (2) The question was whether there was in the convention, as explained by the European Court of Human Rights, any absolute requirement that a claimant should be able to see the allegations against him in sufficient detail to give instructions to his legal team to enable the allegations to be challenged effectively. Clearly, it was a very significant inroad into conventional judicial procedure to hold a closed material procedure admissible, if it would lead to a claimant not knowing of such allegations in such detail. It was an inroad which should only ever be contemplated or permitted by a court, if satisfied after inspection and full consideration of the relevant material as well as after hearing the submissions of the special advocate, that it was essential in the particular case. However, in light of the clear line of jurisprudence culminating in the decision in Kennedy v United Kingdom ([2010] All ER (D) 224 (May)), to say that it was not possible under the convention as interpreted by the Court in Strasbourg was impossible (see [67]-[69] of the judgment). Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed (see [69] of the judgment). center_img Home Office v Tariq: Supreme Court (Lords Phillips P, Hope DP, Rodger, Brown, Mance, Kerr, Clarke, Dyson and Lady Hale): 13 July 2011 Right to a fair hearing – Employment proceedingslast_img read more

Read More →

We also need to engage the youth

first_imgMark R H Kleinschmidt, DA Proportional Representative councillor, KenwynMy 8-year-old grandson asked me what one says to another in acknow-ledging June 1. It was a bit of a tough one for me and I thought long and hard before answering him.Nowadays, our children and pupils in particular are extremely knowledgeable through their access to the internet, and Google is a tool which answers practically all questions.A quick answer for my enquiring minded grandson, would have been, wishing the person “Happy June”, but that would not appease him. I deliberated instead with, “Happy Youth Month”, which led to a further barrage of questions from his enquiring appetite.The moral of the aforesaid exchange tells us that while it is noble to acknowledge youth during June, that it is vitally important to engage and ensure that young and old alike assimilate the significance and meaning of Youth Month. It is not enough to merely have celebratory concerts and the ilk. Youth Month holds much significance for each of us individually and as a nation as we reflect on the events leading up to June 16, 1976, and it must be commemorated and embraced as such. Herein lies our true freedom from apartheid and the chains which separated us. Happy Youth Month.last_img read more

Read More →

Navajo Nation sues feds over massive 2015 mine waste spill

first_img Published: August 16, 2016 1:43 PM EDT Updated: August 17, 2016 12:40 PM EDT Do you see a typo or an error? Let us know. Navajo Nation sues feds over massive 2015 mine waste spill Leaders of one of the nation’s largest American Indian tribes blasted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as their attorneys sued Tuesday, claiming negligence in the cleanup of a massive mine waste spill that tainted rivers in three Western states.Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye stood on the bank of the San Juan River in northwestern New Mexico and explained his people’s link to the water and the economic, cultural and psychological damage inflicted in the wake of the August 2015 spill in southwestern Colorado.“EPA, we’re holding your feet to the fire,” Begaye said, promising that generations of Navajos are willing to fight. “We will not let you get away with this because you have caused great damage to our people, our river, our lifeblood.”A federal contractor triggered the spill during preliminary cleanup work at a mine near Silverton, Colorado. Three million gallons of wastewater carrying arsenic, lead and other heavy metals contaminated rivers in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah.Communities downstream were forced to temporarily halt drawing water from the Animas and San Juan rivers for drinking water and irrigation.Officials have estimated some 880,000 pounds of metals poured into the rivers. Navajos and others are concerned the contamination that has settled in the riverbeds and banks is getting stirred up each time storm runoff courses downstream.The EPA has taken responsibility for cleaning up the spill, but a spokeswoman said Tuesday that the agency will not comment on pending litigation.The Navajo Nation joins New Mexico in pursuing legal action over the spill. The state sued the EPA and Colorado earlier this year, citing environmental and economic damage.Tribal officials at the news conference and in the lawsuit pointed to delays and resistance by the EPA, saying the agency has failed to compensate Navajos for their losses or provide any meaningful recovery efforts over the past year.The EPA has dedicated more than $29 million to respond to the spill and for monitoring, but much of that is going toward stabilization and ongoing drainage at the mine. Reimbursement of state, local and tribal costs is underway, but the tribe has received only a fraction of the nearly $1.6 million doled out to all the parties.Begaye said Navajo farmers have felt the brunt of the spill. Some crops went unplanted this year and cultural practices such as the gathering of corn pollen were skipped.“We have seen the tears. We’ve heard the cries. We’ve heard the anger, the anguish, the loss of trust,” Begaye said.He called the actions of the agency, its contractor and the mining companies reckless and reiterated his disappointment that Navajos have yet to receive a phone call or letter of apology from President Barack Obama.Navajo officials said the government has denied repeated requests for everything from compensation for farmers to resources for long-term monitoring and an onsite laboratory for real-time testing of the river.“They have not done a thing,” Begaye said during his impassioned address.While the lawsuit doesn’t include an exact dollar figure for damages the tribe is seeking, Begaye said Navajos are owed “millions” and that the scope of the contamination is still unknown.A criminal investigation into the spill is being conducted by the EPA’s Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Justice Department, but it’s unclear how long that probe could take.Several members of Congress had pressed for an investigation into the EPA’s role in causing the disaster. SHARElast_img read more

Read More →