LONDON, June 5 (UPI) -- British Queen Elizabeth II's four-day Diamond Jubilee celebration in London began wrapping up Tuesday with a church service and procession.
Elizabeth, 86, is the second British monarch -- after her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria -- to reign for at least 60 years.
Wearing a mint-green silk tulle ensemble, the queen participated in a service at St. Paul's Cathedral where trumpeters lined the stone steps and the Archbishop of Canterbury paid tribute to her "lifelong dedication," the BBC said. Prime Minister David Cameron gave a reading at the service.
After the religious ceremony, onlookers outside the church sang the national anthem as the queen headed to a reception at nearby Mansion House, the official residence of the Lord Mayor of London, followed by lunch at Westminster Hall, the BBC said.
She and other senior royals then returned by carriage through cheering crowds to Buckingham Palace ahead of a planned Royal Air Force flypast.
Spotted at Tuesday's events were the queen's son, Prince Charles; his wife Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall; her grandson Prince William and his wife Kate; and her grandson Prince Harry.
The queen's 90-year-old husband Prince Philip missed out on the events after he was hospitalized Monday for a bladder infection.
Source: www.upi.com
New law won’t require license for concealed weapon in home, business - Cincinnati.com
People won’t need a license to carry a concealed deadly weapon in their home or business that they own when a new law goes into effect July 12.
The General Assembly passed House Bill 484 with ease in this year’s regular session, passing the House 86-5 and the Senate 36-1 with the governor signing it into law April 11.
Gun owners saw it as a reaffirmation for their right to defend their property.
“My favorite saying is, ‘When seconds count, the police are only minutes away,” said Homer Cole, owner of Shooters Supply and Sporting Goods in Independence.
The bill received 36 sponsors both Democrat and Republican and was one of three bills that passed this year with the support of the National Rifle Association.
Another bill, House Bill 500, strengthened the state supremecy of its gun laws by preventing local government and public agencies from enacting stricter gun control laws than the state. The NRA characterized the third bill, House Bill 563, as one that would “protect lawful firearm retailers from illegal gun sting operations.”
State Rep. Dennis Keene, D-Wilder, co-sponsored all three and called House Bill 484 a no-brainer. The law requires a conceal carry license unless the person owns or leases the property or is the grandparent, parent or child of the owner and has the owner’s permission. The person must be the sole proprietor of the business to carry a concealed gun without a license on the business property.
“Being a homeowner and business owner when I was in the grocery store business before Kentucky had a concealed carry law, I felt I was at jeopardy on my property,” Keene said. “I was in a high crime area. I felt it was a no brainer. If you are on your own property, protecting your own stuff, you should be able to carry a gun.”
Many gun owners were surprised to learn Kentucky law didn’t already allow people to carry a concealed deadly weapon in their home or business they own unless they had a conceal-carry license.
The new law will clearly state that people can have a concealed firearm on their property and prevent any legal confusion, said Tim Harney, who teaches a concealed-carry course at Shooters Supply and Sporting Goods in Independence.
“I think it is needed, especially when you think about being in your own house and you can’t conceal a firearm,” Harney said ”Most people didn’t understand it or realize you couldn’t do it. Now that it’s gone into effect, I hear people that are happy it is a new law.”
Gun owner Kevin Koshiol, of Hebron, agrees with the new law.
“I would say it is appropriate they can arm themselves and protect themselves,” Koshiol said. “There are probably a lot of business owners that are surprised they couldn’t do this. I don’t know if it changes anything. I guess it should be identified what you can do and where the limits are. I think that’s important. ”
Kentucky has allowed non-felon residents to carry concealed deadly weapons with a permit since 1996. Permittees must meet many requirements and still can’t carry weapons into some places, including courthouses, elementary and secondary schools, childcare facilities, and at a meeting of a government body.
“Kentucky, Florida and Texas are three of the most welcoming states dealing with firearms in the country,” Cole said. “I believe the legislatures around here are sensible enough to realize this is what the people want. I feel most peopel should have the right to own firearms and protect themselves in any condition and whereever they’re at.”
Most states allow for homeowners and business owners to carry concealed deadly weapons on their property without a license, said Stephanie Samford, spokeswoman with the NRA.
“We’re dedicated to making sure law-abiding people defend themselves,” Samford said. “This bill helps with that.”
Many in the law enforcement community haven’t expressed concern about House Bill 484. Police expressed concerns in the 1990s about the conceal-carry laws but have adapted and routinely ask whether someone has a concealed weapon, said Michael Bischoff, executive director of the Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police. That state legislature has made more than 20 different changes to its concealed carry law since it was first enacted to make it safer, Bischoff said.
“Here it has been pretty well regulated,” he said. “It keeps being improved upon.”
Posted in: Updates
Source: cincinnati.com
Safe-haven seekers propel prime London house prices to new highs - The Independent
Last month's increase means the prices of prime London houses are now 47.3 per cent higher than at their post-credit crunch low in March 2009, according to research from Knight Frank, the estate agent.
The increase came despite an increase in the stamp duty rate to 7 per cent for properties worth £2m or more.
Liam Bailey, Knight Frank's head of residential research, said: "While it looks very much that the surge in Greek buyers has fallen off sharply since the beginning of the year – those who have had the funds to buy have done so – we are now seeing a noticeable uptick in interest from France, Italy, Spain and even German-based purchasers looking at the prime London market.
"If the crisis in the Eurozone leads to a break-up, will this flow of funds continue to London? The final form of the break-up will dictate that," Mr Bailey added.
Any country that seems to be at imminent risk of ejection from the Eurozone is likely to see a massive outflow of capital, some of which is ending up in expensive bricks and mortar in London, says Mr Bailey.
Last month's 0.7 per cent jump in prices means that prices are now 10.7 per cent than a year ago. It follows a 1.1 per cent increase in April and leaves prices 12.1 per cent above their previous peak in March 2008.
Analysts said the figures presented further evidence that the London property market was one of three safe havens for cash, alongside gold and the swiss franc.
On Saturday, upmarket estate agency Savills reported that it has seen web searches from France increase by 16 per cent, compared with six months ago, with Spain up 10 per cent and Italy rising by 9 per cent.
Furthermore, the falling value of the euro against the pound, making property purchases relatively more expensive, seems to have had little impact on rising prices, analysts said. Rupert des Forges, a partner at Knight Frank, said: "Recent weeks have seen an even greater influx of European buyers looking to purchase property in the Prime London market.
"We have recently sold examples including two substantial flats in a premier Knightsbridge block with asking prices in excess of £15m.
We have also seen a sharp rise in interest from French investors looking to move quickly before [new president François] Hollande's newly proposed wealth tax."
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Law Lets New York Cops Keep Their Misconduct Secret - Reason.com
In New York State, personnel records for cops, firefighters and corrections officers are protected by a privacy law, even when those records reveal misconduct and are of concern to the public. Peter Schmitt, the presiding officer of the Nassau County Legislature, ran afoul of that law when he revealed important details of a case that resulted in a large settlement after police screw-ups allowed one of their informants to first harass, and then murder, his ex-girlfriend. While the judge in the case is holding off on a decision, Schmitt could be fined and even jailed for telling taxpayers about mistakes made by public employees that are costing taxpayers $7.7 million dollars.
According to news reports about the information Schmitt revealed:
The testimony came from the former head of the police department's internal affairs unit, who investigated police procedures in the case of Jo'Anna Bird. She was murdered in 2009 by her former boyfriend. Her family later claimed that police failed to arrest the man later convicted of the murders when he violated orders of protection on several occasions before the killing.
The killer, Leonardo Valdez-Cruz, was reportedly a drug informant for the police. He is serving life without parole.
After voting in January to approve the payment, Schmitt told Long Island cable TV station News12 that police had provided Cruz with a cellphone while he was in jail on a prior unrelated arrest. Cruz, according to Schmitt, made 35-40 harassing telephone calls to Bird from his jail cell.
Newsday adds that "Valdez-Cruz, who was a police informant, is now serving life in prison for torturing and killing the mother of two."
All of this is horrifying in itself, and it's a matter of public concern both because of the conduct of police officers employed to protect the public, and because Nassau County ended up paying out $7.7 million in taxpayer money to Bird's family to settle the case. Which would seem to be good reason for Peter Schmitt, the top lawmaker in the county and the guy who signed the settlement, to chat with a television news crew about a report revealing what his constituents were paying for.
But, in New York, § 50-a of the state Civil Rights Law, discourages that sort of transparency. Under the law:
All personnel records, used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion, under the control of any police agency or department of the state or any political subdivision thereof including authorities or agencies maintaining police forces of individuals defined as police officers in section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law and such personnel records under the control of a sheriff's department or a department of correction of individuals employed as correction officers and such personnel records under the control of a paid fire department or force of individuals employed as firefighters or firefighter/paramedics and such personnel records under the control of the division of parole for individuals defined as peace officers pursuant to subdivisions twenty-three and twenty-three-a of section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review without the express written consent of such police officer, firefighter, firefighter/paramedic, correction officer or peace officer within the division of parole except as may be mandated by lawful court order.
And, since the information Schmitt revealed was sealed pursuant to a reading of the law even broader than the law itself, he found himself, because of his role as a county official, facing a contempt charge.
Why such a restrictive law? Well, the New York Court of Appeals held in Capital Newspapers v. Burns that the law "was designed to limit access to said personnel records by criminal defense counsel, who used the contents of the records, including unsubstantiated and irrelevant complaints against officers, to embarrass officers during cross-examination." In Prisoners' Legal Services v. NYS Department of Correctional Services the court elaborated that the intent "was to prevent the release of sensitive personnel records that could be used in litigation for purposes of harassing or embarrassing correction officers."
However do other states get by without similar legislation? Oh ... That's right. Judges have the power to limit what gets presented in their courtrooms, and to screen out anything irrelevant.
And if it's not irrelevant? Well, being embarrassed is part of the price of screwing up, isn't it? You do something wrong, it gets exposed, and ...
That's the point made by Newsday, which editorialized:
It's not Schmitt's candor that is contemptible. It's the sealing of that report in a misguided ruling by U.S. Magistrate Kathleen Thomlinson, handling the case for U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Spatt, and the court's failure to see the critical public service that would have been performed by making the report public.
The newspaper goes on to list several other cases of serious police misbehavior, the details of which have been hidden from the public behind the wall of the law known as 50-a.
Newsday has good company in its contempt for the "privacy" law. In 2010, New York's Committee on Open Government warned (PDF) that under 50-a, "those public employees who have the most power over our lives are the least accountable. If a police officer, a correction officer or a professional firefighter has broken the rules, the public should have the right to know." The committee also said, "that law should never have been enacted, and it should be repealed."
The law is still there. And it still conceals police misconduct from the eyes of the public.
Source: reason.com
Sussex Police count the cost of a weekend of protests in Brighton and Hove - The Argus.co.uk
Sussex Police count the cost of a weekend of protests in Brighton and Hove
2:30pm Tuesday 5th June 2012 in News By Ben Parsons, Crime Reporter
Police are counting the cost of one of their biggest ever weekends.
An operation to escort a march by anti-arms protesters yesterday (June 4) followed what was believed to be the single biggest deployment of officers in recent memory on Saturday, June 2.
Sussex Police refused to be drawn on exact figures but the bill for similar events in the past indicate the costs of the two operations could easily reach half a million pounds.
About 100 officers were sent onto the street, yesterday to police a Smash EDO demonstration in Brighton while more were held in reserve.
Officers from Hampshire and Surrey were brought to the city to support the operation, as well as police horses supplied from outside Sussex.
On Saturday officers from forces as far away as Warwickshire were brought to Brighton in case of large-scale trouble.
Very often police resources deter people from doing things. I’m not saying that’s the case here – we don’t know what we’ve deterred
Chief Superintendent Graham Bartlett
Police had feared hundreds of supporters of the far-right English Defence League would come to the city and clash with anti-fascist protesters.
An anti-Jubilee street party by Brighton Uncut also raised the prospect of difficulties, following lengthy stand-offs at previous events which involved the invasion of shops.
Split groups
In the end officers said about 100 nationalists were out and about in Brighton and Hove.
They did not form a single group, but about 70 anti-fascist activists challenged them on the streets.
A total of 18 people were arrested. A group of about 30 were eventually escorted to Brighton Station to leave the city.
Sussex Police said it stood down some officers on both days when it became clear there were fewer people to deal with than they had planned for.
On Saturday onlookers, Unite Against Fascism and nationalists alike criticised the police for putting so many officers on the street.
Senior officers said they did not know the total cost of the demonstrations yesterday.
Costly operation
The force denied claims that 800 officers were involved on Saturday but said the operation was likely to have been the biggest in recent memory.
In 2010 putting 200 officers on the street because of a Brighton Uncut protest at Top Shop was said have cost the force a “six figure” sum.
A Smash EDO march on May Day 2009, which included officers being sent in support from forces elsewhere in the country, cost £560,000 once Bank Holiday overtime payments were claimed.
Chief Superintendent Graham Bartlett praised event organisers and protesters for working with police.
He said: “We have had an incredibly busy weekend.
“That has meant there has been very little disruption in the city.
“The resources for big events are based on very careful threat assessments and understanding of what’s required to keep people safe.
“Very often police resources deter people from doing things. I’m not saying that’s the case here – we don’t know what we’ve deterred.
“What was anticipated was needed was what was put out on both days.
“As soon as that assessment changed resources were stood down and people went off duty when they were no longer needed.”
Comments(25)
HOVEPARKRESIDENT says...
2:40pm Tue 5 Jun 12
emma barnes says...
3:33pm Tue 5 Jun 12
pwlr1966 says...
3:49pm Tue 5 Jun 12
billy goat-gruff says...
4:46pm Tue 5 Jun 12
voiceofthescoombe says...
4:52pm Tue 5 Jun 12
roadkillchicken says...
5:16pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Alan G Skinner says...
5:33pm Tue 5 Jun 12
rolivan says...
5:44pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Alan G Skinner says...
5:48pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Busterblister says...
6:00pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Busterblister says...
6:01pm Tue 5 Jun 12
D360 says...
6:27pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Joe Average says...
6:28pm Tue 5 Jun 12
D360 says...
6:29pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Joe Average says...
6:29pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Joe Average says...
6:41pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Joe Average says...
6:45pm Tue 5 Jun 12
mimseycal says...
6:50pm Tue 5 Jun 12
mimseycal says...
6:53pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Tttoommy says...
6:55pm Tue 5 Jun 12
D360 says...
7:13pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Alan G Skinner says...
7:32pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Robbadob says...
10:49pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Metro Reader says...
11:18pm Tue 5 Jun 12
NickBrt says...
11:18pm Tue 5 Jun 12
Source: www.theargus.co.uk
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Or