The rhododendrons were resplendent, the outfield verdant and occasionally the sun shone but on a day when Kent set out their marquees to celebrate the start of the 100th Tunbridge Wells Cricket Week, the Nevill Ground suffered only frustration.
A flash flood that soaked the royal spa town barely 48 hours ahead of the scheduled start to this four-day clash with Hampshire also helped create a sodden outfield and a crusty-topped pitch that one local likened to a creme brulee. Clearly, they still eat well in these parts.
With damp patches on the pitch and outfield the umpires, Richard Illingworth and Steve Gale, were understandably reticent to start and held five pitch inspections before finally succumbing to the slow hand-clapping that emanated, in the main, from the equally well-watered Camra marquee.
The match officials finally deemed play possible at 4.10pm, by which time the Guardian's former cricket correspondent Matthew Engel was to be found ensconced among the Kentish men in the aforementioned tent from where he watched his first action at this ground since the late 1990s.
Having admitted that he once sub-edited on the News of the World, as a freelance casual of course, Engel ordered up a pint of the aptly-named Red Top for his first and only pint of a frustrating afternoon. Wisely, he had already deemed another local brew, Dartford Wobbler with an ABV of 4.3%, a tad too powerful for a mid-afternoon thirst-quencher.
Yet in the time it took Engel to sup his pint Hampshire were already three down with their top-order struggling to lay bat on ball after Kent had won the toss and inserted them. The wily new-ball pairing of Mark Davies and Charlie Shreck nipped it around at will and caused headaches aplenty during the 63 minutes of play that were possible before the rain arrived again.
Kent's one-time opening bat Michael Carberry followed one from Shreck to edge low to the wicketkeeper Geraint Jones, then, 10 runs on, Bilal Shafayat pushed outside the line of a Mark Davies off-cutter to go leg-before for nine. The visiting captain, Jimmy Adams, followed in near identical fashion with eight against his name when he too played down the wrong line to be lbw to Davies.
The clouds, the drizzle and the covers returned soon after and the faithful trooped home hoping for better weather on the morrow. At least they had not suffered like the crowd for the three-day clash here between Kent and Sussex in 1908, when the game was abandoned without a ball being bowled.
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
NRA-Backed Law Spells Out When Indianans May Open Fire on Police - Bloomberg
Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law.
Hubbard, a 17-year veteran of the police department in Jeffersonville, Indiana, says his apprehension stems from a state law approved this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the “unlawful intrusion” by a “public servant” to protect themselves and others, or their property.
“If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’” said Hubbard, 40, who is president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”
Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents and supports prosecutors. The National Rifle Association pushed for the law, saying an unfavorable court decision made the need clear and that it would allow homeowners to defend themselves during a violent, unjustified attack. Police lobbied against it.
The NRA, a membership group that says it’s widely recognized as a “major political force” and as the country’s “foremost defender” of Second Amendment rights, has worked to spread permissive gun laws around the country. Among them is the Stand Your Ground self-defense measure in Florida, which generated nationwide controversy after the Feb. 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Florida teenager.
Amended Law
Asked about the Indiana law, Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the Fairfax, Virginia-based association, said he would look into the matter. He didn’t return subsequent calls.
The measure was approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March. It amended a 2006 so-called Castle Doctrine bill that allows deadly force to stop illegal entry into a home or car.
The law describes the ability to use force to “protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.”
Republican state Senator R. Michael Young, the bill’s author, said there haven’t been any cases in which suspects have used the law to justify shooting police.
‘Public Servant’
He said “public servant” was added to clarify the law after a state Supreme Court ruling last year that “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” The case was based on a man charged with assaulting an officer during a domestic-violence call.
Young cited a hypothetical situation of a homeowner returning to see an officer raping his daughter or wife. Under the court’s ruling, the homeowner could not touch the officer and only file a lawsuit later, he said. Young said he devised the idea for the law after the court ruling.
“There are bad legislators,” Young said. “There are bad clergy, bad doctors, bad teachers, and it’s these officers that we’re concerned about that when they act outside their scope and duty that the individual ought to have a right to protect themselves.”
Bill supporters tried to accommodate police by adding specific requirements that might justify force, and by replacing “law enforcement officer” in the original version with “public servant,” said Republican state Representative Jud McMillin, the House sponsor.
Preventing Injury
The measure requires those using force to “reasonably believe” a law-enforcement officer is acting illegally and that it’s needed to prevent “serious bodily injury,” Daniels said in a statement when he signed the law.
“In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met,” Daniels said. “This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers.”
Jane Jankowski, a spokeswoman for Daniels, referred questions about the measure to that statement.
Opponents see a potential for mistakes and abuse.
It’s not clear under the law whether an officer acting in good faith could be legally shot for mistakenly kicking down the wrong door to serve a warrant, said state Senator Tim Lanane, the assistant Democratic leader and an attorney.
“It’s a risky proposition that we set up here,” Lanane said.
Intoxicated Suspects
Those who are intoxicated or emotional can’t decide whether police are acting legally, and suspects may assume they have the right to attack officers, said Tim Downs, president of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police. The law didn’t need to be changed because there isn’t an epidemic of rogue police in Indiana, he said.
“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” said Downs, chief of the Lake County police in northwest Indiana. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
Downs said he canceled his NRA membership after the organization pressed for the Indiana legislation.
The NRA helped get the measure through the Legislature and encouraged its members to contact lawmakers and Daniels.
The organization’s Indiana lobbyist attended all the Legislative committee hearings, said State Representative Linda Lawson, the Democratic floor leader and a former police officer.
Political Support
Lawmakers respond to the NRA because the group brings political support, Lawson said.
The legislation reversed an “activist court decision,” and “restores self-defense laws to what they were,” the NRA said on its legislative website.
In Clay County, Indiana, outside Terre Haute, the Sheriff’s Department changed its procedures because of the law. Detectives in plain clothes and unmarked cars now must be accompanied by a uniformed officer on calls to homes, Sheriff Michael Heaton said.
“I’m not worried about the law-abiding citizens,” said Heaton, who also is president of the Indiana Sheriff’s Association. “It’s the ones that really don’t understand the law and they just think, ‘Cop shows up at my door, I can do whatever I want to him.’”
Hubbard, the officer in Jeffersonville, in southeastern Indiana, said the law causes him to second-guess himself. He serves on the department’s patrol division and is a member of its special weapons and tactics unit. The department serves “thousand” of warrants a year, he said.
“It puts doubt in your mind,” said Hubbard, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps before joining the department. “And hesitation in our job can mean somebody gets hurt or killed.”
Hubbard said he hasn’t changed his approach to his job or noticed a difference in how civilians he encounters are behaving.
The law has changed Hubbard’s view of the NRA.
He said he has been “a proud member of the NRA for years,” and while he’s still a member and NRA firearms instructor, “the day I found out the NRA was pushing behind this bill was the day I became a not-so-happy NRA member.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Niquette in Columbus, Ohio, at mniquette@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
Patrick Fallon/Bloomberg
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed a state law this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the “unlawful intrusion” by a “public servant” to protect themselves and others, or their property.
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed a state law this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the “unlawful intrusion” by a “public servant” to protect themselves and others, or their property. Photographer: Patrick Fallon/Bloomberg
Source: www.bloomberg.com
Israel Rejects Controversial Settler Law - lbc.co.uk
Israel's parliament has rejected controversial legislation that would have legalised unauthorised Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
The bill, opposed by the country's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was defeated by 69 to 22 votes at the Knesset, with 29 abstentions.
The vote paves the way for the removal of five buildings in the hilltop settlement of Givat Ulpana, which Israel's High Court ruled were built on privately owned Palestinian land.
But, in an effort to appease the powerful settler movement, Mr Netanyahu has pledged to move the structures to a former Israeli military base in the West Bank and construct an additional 300 homes in the nearby settlement of Beit El.
The move will anger the international community which views the expansion of settlements as an obstacle to progress in the peace process.
The Palestinians have refused to restart negotiations with Israel unless a total freeze on settlement activity is declared.
Hundreds of settlers and their right wing supporters joined protests outside the Knesset, attempting to block the roads as the vote began.
"A Jew does not evict a Jew," some of the protesters chanted.
There were minor scuffles with police.
Mr Netanyahu opposed the bill because he said it challenged the rule of law in Israel, threatening the government's ability to control the process of construction and approval of Jewish settlements.
He said the rejection of the legislation would strengthen the settler movement not weaken it.
Israel's prime minister, facing a potential rebellion by some of the far right members of his coalition, threatened to dismiss any ministers who voted in favour of the bill.
The buildings in Givat Ulpana are due to be removed on July 1, but further legal challenges could delay the process.
Israel considers a number of small "hilltop outposts" to be illegal because they were built without government permission.
The UN deems all of the West Bank settlements - home to hundreds of thousands of Israelis - to be a violation of international law.
The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the transfer of civilians onto occupied land.
Israel claims a historical right to build in the West Bank - territory it terms Judea and Samaria - because of the Jewish connection to the biblical land.
(c) Sky News 2012
Source: www.lbc.co.uk
Law of the Sea Treaty supports US interests - Stars and Stripes
The expansion of U.S. territory by international treaty dates back to the earliest years of our republic. In 1783, the Treaty of Paris marked the end of the American Revolution and internationally recognized the United States’ hard-fought independence from Great Britain. Just 20 years later, President Thomas Jefferson and the Senate doubled the size of the nation with the Louisiana Purchase. In 1867, the Senate approved the “Alaska Purchase,” in which Czar Alexander II of Russia ceded more than half a million square miles of territory to the U.S.
These foundational decisions have since provided incalculable economic and security benefits for the nation. America now has an opportunity for another great expansion of national sovereignty, in this case over the extended continental shelf, but only if the Senate approves the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Recently the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff joined business leaders and national security experts to publicly call for the U.S. Senate to approve the Law of the Sea Treaty. The speakers represented a broad, diverse and distinguished group of leaders and experts who understand why Senate approval is imperative to expand U.S. territory beneath the oceans, protect vital national security interests, develop new commercial interests and create jobs.
By approving the treaty, to which 161 nations are already party, the Senate would secure exclusive American access to the full U.S. extended continental shelf. This would mean, for example, a 600-mile extension beyond the coast of Alaska — three times the current internationally recognized 200-mile limit — securing for America a seabed area the size of California that contains enormous natural wealth, including abundant oil and natural gas resources and extensive mineral deposits, particularly vital rare earth minerals used in advanced technology products.
Other nations are in the process of claiming resources off their own coasts, but American industry and investors cannot pursue our opportunities without the needed international recognition of America’s legal rights to exploit seabed resources that treaty ratification would provide.
Further, the United States would gain a permanent seat — and a permanent veto — on the international body that regulates access to ocean mineral resources in international waters. We need our government actively involved in this body to defend U.S. claims and interests. Failure to approve the Law of the Sea Treaty would pose a strategic commercial and security disadvantage for the nation.
Senate approval would also assure U.S. armed forces the legal right to move through and over the world’s oceans (including hot spots such as the South China Sea and the Strait of Hormuz), and give the U.S. access to an internationally recognized system for resolving commercial disputes in foreign waters while protecting its exclusive right to address military disputes directly and on its own terms.
That is why former U.S. presidents and secretaries of state, together with Joint Chiefs of Staff, current and former Navy, Coast Guard, Army, Marine and Air Force service chiefs, have consistently endorsed the Law of the Sea Treaty over the years. President George W. Bush’s administration strongly supported it.
Critics argue that America has gotten along just fine without the treaty, but current events make Senate approval increasingly urgent. Russia and other nations are poised to encroach on what should be within our extended economic zone in the U.S. outer continental shelf. America must now secure its legitimate claims to these valuable offshore resources.
Ratification would give America a firmer hand in dealing with the risks of Cuba’s proposed effort to drill for oil off the coast of Florida, Iran’s threats to peaceful commercial and military transit through the Strait of Hormuz, and possible threats to commercial shipping and military transport through critical straits and chokepoints throughout the world.
Both the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska Purchase were controversial in their time. It is clear now, however, that those acts of government guaranteed a secure and prosperous future for America. Today’s Senate has the constitutional obligation to deliver the next great expansion of U.S. sovereign rights. For America’s national interests, we ask them to give advice and consent to the Law of the Sea Treaty.
John Warner, a Virginia Republican, is a former secretary of the Navy and former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Thomas J. Donohue is president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Source: www.stripes.com
Kent stargazers hoping to see transit of Venus thwarted by bad weather - Kent News
Transit of Venus at the Isle fo Grain
Chris Murphy
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
1:40 PM
Around 100 prople gather on Isle of Grain beach this morning
Nearly 100 people turned out early this morning to catch the glimpse of a once-in-a-lifetime astrological marvel – the transit of Venus, were thwarted by the bad weather.
This is where the planet can be clearly seen passing between the Earth and the Sun, in a a sort of miniature eclipse.
The group of strgazers gathered on the beach at the Isle of Grain hoping to witness the celestial event which happens just twice a century - the sighting will not be for another 105 years.
The Mid-Kent Astronomical Society said it would have been a spectacular sight, had the clouds partly a little earlier.
It said more than 80 people from right across the South-East of England and London, arrived with them to watch.
It was organised by MKAS with the backing of Grain Parish Council and the local residents, many of whom joined in.
Some observers brought their own solar-protected telescopes and binoculars while others viewed through telescopes provided by society members and special solar viewers provided by MKAS.
The society said unfortunately the clouds didn’t part until the transit had finished, but everybody was treated to views of the Moon while waiting for the Sun to make an appearance.
Once the clouds did separate and the Sun shone through, everyone managed to get some magnificent views of sunspots and even ‘prominences’ through Bob Tollervey’s telescope which was equipped with a highly specialised hydrogen-alpha filter.
Prominences are huge explosions on the Sun’s surface.
To help compensate for the lack of a perfectly clear view, bacon butties and cups of tea were provided by MKAS member Sarah Watson and her daughter Faye.
Organiser Bob Tollervey said: “Seeing everyone, including families with younger children, enjoying themselves and learning about astronomy, really made all the hard work worthwhile.
“Many astronomers were on hand to explain all about the transit and later to explain the sunspots and even craters that were clearly visible on the Moon. Unfortunately the British weather did not play ball but everyone went away happy.
“Don’t forget that there will be a transit of Mercury which is the only other planet to transit the Sun, on May 9, 2016, starting around 12.12pm and ending around 7.42pm. MKAS will be ready and waiting to welcome everyone again.”
Source: www.kentnews.co.uk
New South African press law 'more harmful than apartheid-era censorship' - The Guardian
The new protection of state information law is more harmful to South African press freedom than apartheid-era censorship, according to the widow of the legendary anti-apartheid journalist and editor, Donald Woods.
Woods was stripped of his editorship of the Daily Dispatch newspaper and banned from public speaking because of his investigation into the death of black activist Steve Biko in 1977. He fled South Africa after threats to his life and family, settling in London, where he died in 2001. He is best remembered as the author of Biko biography, which became the basis for the film Cry Freedom.
Despite her husband's experiences, Wendy Woods believes the vagueness of the legislation passed by the African National Congress government makes it potentially more restrictive.
"I would say it's more insidious that what my husband had to deal with," Woods told the Guardian. "There were many laws in his time restricting journalists, but they knew what they were. This bill allows any government official to deem any information a state secret. It's worse than the apartheid era because its so unspecific. You don't know what it is you are up against."
"The penalties sound dreadful: 25 years in prison, which is horrendous," she added. "The prospect of 25 years in jail would scare anyone, I would have thought."
Speaking in an interview at home on the outskirts of London, Woods said she was heartened by what she called "a huge groundswell of opposition" to the new law by former colleagues in the anti-apartheid movement. Her husband would also have been "outrageous and vociferous" in resisting it, she said.
" [It will] disempower journalists because they won't have a working knowledge of what they can or cannot say, which is more or less what they had during the apartheid era. Donald said through experience and instinct he grew to know … what he could or couldn't say," Woods recalled.
For example, he would reserve his most outspoken editorials skewering the apartheid system for Friday, in the knowledge that most government ministers had farms they would go to at the weekend. They would have two days to cool down before returning to their offices and deciding on a response. Under Woods editorship no Daily Dispatch journalists were jailed for what they wrote.
The new law, Wendy Woods said, is by comparison "too all-encompassing". She said South African journalists old enough to remember apartheid "will feel it's back to the old days". But she added: "They are ready to fight, because they remember what it felt like."
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Sign in to leave your comment
0 comments