There is already a strong US contingency in Singapore with Latham & Watkins and White & Case holding QFLPs. They are keen for more Asian presence to service their high net worth US clients based here.
The number of international law firms in the city state has risen from 70 in 2007 to 110 this year as more expats and foreign companies settle in the former British colony.
Singapore's law minister K Shanmugam said: "We want to make sure of the quality, we are looking for firms that can add value and bring new work from overseas into Singapore and add a significant premium to our legal scene."
But there is another route for a foreign law firm to practice in Singapore, which is home to the world's highest proportion of millionaires.
Instead they can enter into a joint law venture (JLV) with a local firm. This allows them to practice all branches of law including corporate, litigation and retail conveyancing.
This is the route US legal giant Baker & McKenzie, the world's largest law firm by revenue, took.
South Korea has also recently opened its legal markets to American and European law firms as both continents battle it out for Asian business.
Both Clifford Chance and Allen & Overy have signalled their intentions to enter the lucrative Korean legal scene.
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Who needs make-up! Sam Faiers shows a more relaxed side as she enjoys romantic pool rendezvous with beau Joey Essex - Daily Mail
By Holly Thomas
|
She was spotted heading to the pool at the weekend looking as though she'd spent the entire morning getting ready for the sunbathing session.
So it was refreshing to see Sam Faiers looking rather more relaxed yesterday as she enjoyed a little downtime with her on-off beau Joey Essex at their Marbella resort.
The couple looked perfectly at ease with one another, at one point nipping off to grab a bite to eat without their TOWIE castmates.
In their natural state: Sam Faiers and Joey Essex were looking relaxed by the pool at their Marbella resort yesterday
Filming taking its toll? Both looked a little tired, but glad to chill out in each others' company
Sam didn't bother to wear make-up, and covered her bikini-clad frame in a comfy t-shirt now and then when the sun became too much.
She did get up to stretch her legs and show off her tanned figure at one point however, looking far more relaxed in flip flops than she had done in heels over the weekend.
Joey looked a little restless on the sun lounger, shifting around from time to time, but ever attentive when Sam leaned over to share a quiet word.
Tender moment: Sam used her boyfriend's chest as a pillow as they drifted off together
A little help? Sam used an unconcerned Joey as a support to sit up
He was briefly distracted when a couple of young female fans came over to have a chat, but quickly resumed his prone position once they had left.
Sam was clearly quite happy to sit back and take a break from her usual role of Essex glamour queen.
Over the weekend the blonde boutique owner was spotted filming scenes for the Only Way Is Essex looking more her usual self, wearing a slashed to the navel black swimsuit.
Laid-back look: Sam didn't bother with make-up, and covered up with a loose top when the sun got too much
Ready to take a dip? Sam appeared to be contemplating a swim, while Joey hardly seemed able to move
Getting fidgety: Joey seemed to have trouble finding a comfortable position
She accessorised with a huge, gold neck piece, featuring a large circle in the middle which hung off the main plate and nestling between her breasts, drawing attention.
Sam wisely protected her face from the sun’s rays at Sisu Club and Hotel in Puerto Banus, pairing her skimpy outfit with a giant black and white striped hat and large sunglasses.
A crocheted waistcoat and sky high clogs which elongated her legs completed the look.
Bit of a distraction? Joey looked a little weary as he sat up to greet a couple of young female fans
Ready to make a move? Both looked as though they were feeling the effects of the last few days in Marbs
Blending in with the crowd: Sam was sporting none of her usual TOWIE bling, with unstyled hair and no jewelry
The overall look was significantly more high-maintenance than her low-key poolside look yesterday.
But Sam's more casual appearance clearly wasn't an issue for Joey, who was undeterred in his attentions.
The pair made a touching display of their affections during the final episode of season five last week when Joey penned a heartfelt love letter to Sam.
Time to head for the shade: Even the sun-loving pair needed a break at one point
Joey made Sam laugh as he reminded her of memories they share from when they initially got together, and displayed his childlike handwriting.
His closing words were: 'I love you and you're the love of my life.'
Joey's gesture appeared to make up for the distress he caused when he was photographed getting into a cab with another girl.
Grabbed a bite: The enamored pair went to get some food without their TOWIE castmates
What a difference some slap makes: Joey and a made-up Sam out last Thursday
Dressed to the nines: Sam's look was much more high-maintenance on Sunday
Source: www.dailymail.co.uk
Law of the Sea Treaty Is Wrong for US - NewsMax.com
Mrs. Clinton took part in a meeting of the Arctic Council, whose eight members have territory in that region. Of these, just five — Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark’s Greenland and the United States — actually have coasts on the Arctic Ocean, and therefore are able to claim rights to the resources offshore.
To be sure, the secretary of State used the occasion of her joining the other Arctic nations for the purpose of forging a new region-wide search-and-rescue (S&R) agreement to express the Obama administration’s commitment to LOST. She assured her colleagues that the president is determined to overcome opposition in the Senate and the country in order to get the treaty ratified.
Still, this S&R agreement suggests the obvious: It is far easier to achieve understandings in a group of eight — or, better yet, five — nations that have similar, if not identical, interests and a shared understanding of the stakes, than among a group of 150-plus nations, most of whom do not.
If that is true for an accord governing assistance to downed planes and ships lost at sea, it surely is the case when it comes to the disposition of potentially many billions of dollars worth of undersea oil and gas deposits.
Meanwhile, our Defense secretary was off in Asia trying to shore up America’s alliances in the region without actually saying that China is a threat that needs to be countered there. So he eschewed the president’s much-touted strategic “pivot” from the Middle East and South Asia to the South China Sea — supposedly involving a move in force to parry the PRC’s aspirations for hegemony.
Instead, Mr. Panetta employed less offensive terms like “rebalancing” and made commitments about a future U.S. presence in the theater that were deeply discounted in light of ongoing, and forthcoming, sharp cuts in defense spending.
It happens that Secretary Panetta’s enthusiasm for the Law of the Sea Treaty tracks with Team Obama’s public efforts to low-ball the dangers posed by China’s increasingly aggressive behavior toward our Asian friends and allies, and its growing capacity to act coercively due to its growing military capabilities.
Panetta and, surprisingly, even senior Navy and other military officers who should know better seem to think that if only the United States were a party to LOST, international law would tame the Chinese dragon.
As one of the nation’s most astute China hands, Gordon Chang, noted recently in his column at World Affairs Journal: “Although Beijing ratified the [LOST] pact in June 1996, it continues to issue maps claiming the entire South China Sea. That claim is, among other things, incompatible with the treaty’s rules. It’s no wonder Beijing notified the U.N. in 2006 that it would not accept international arbitration of its sovereignty claims.”
Just as common sense argues for using bilateral or, at most, five-party forums to establish arrangements governing the Arctic Ocean’s resources, it strongly militates against the United States allowing itself to be bound to a treaty whose core provisions (i.e., those governing limitations on territorial claims and mandatory dispute resolutions) are already being serially violated by Communist China.
On May 9, Secretary Panetta nonetheless asserted that “By moving off the sidelines, by sitting at the table of nations that have acceded to this treaty, we can defend our interests, we can lead the discussions, we will be able to influence those treaty bodies that develop and interpret the Law of the Sea.”
That is simply not so if, as is true of the LOST’s various institutions, we would have but one seat among many, and no certainty that we can decisively “influence bodies that develop and interpret the law of the sea.”
In fact, thanks to the rigged-game nature of those institutions, such bodies can be relied upon to hamstring us — by, for example, applying environmental regulations over which we have no control to our Navy’s anti-submarine warfare exercises and our domestic emissions into inland air and water that migrates to the international oceans.
Meanwhile, the Chinese will get away with choosing which rules they will abide by and which they won’t.
Mr. Chang puts it this way: “[China] is . . . a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but remains a notorious nuclear proliferator, and it is a member of the World Trade Organization, yet brazenly disregards its trade obligations. And U.N. sanctions? China openly violates those too, even though it is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.”
In short, the Obama administration wants senators to suspend common sense and ignore real and legitimate concerns about the deleterious impact of the Law of the Sea Treaty on our sovereignty, economic interests and potentially even the national security. Will 34 Senators have enough common sense to just say “No”?
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for The Washington Times, and host of the nationally syndicated program Secure Freedom Radio. Read more reports from Frank Gaffney — Click Here Now.
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Source: www.newsmax.com
Muslim girl can marry at 15: HC - SamayLive
Ruling that a Muslim girl can marry as per her choice at the age of 15 years if she has attained puberty, the Delhi High Court has held the marriage of a minor girl valid and allowed her to stay in her matrimonial house.
"This Court notes that according to Mohammedan Law a girl can marry without the consent of her parents once she attains the age of puberty and she has the right to reside with her husband even if she is below the age of 18....," a bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and S P Garg said.
Citing various Supreme Court judgements on the issue of minor Muslim girls' marriage, the bench said "In view of the above judgments, it is clear that a Muslim girl who has attained puberty i.e. 15 years can marry and such a marriage would not be a void marriage. However, she has the option of treating the marriage as voidable, at the time of her attaining the age of majority, i.e 18 years."
Accepting the 16-year-old girl's plea to allow her to stay in her matrimonial home, the bench has disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by the girl's mother alleging that her daughter was kidnapped by a youth and forced into marriage in April last year.
The bench accepted the girl's statement she had left her parental home of her own will to marry the man of her choice and her husband should not be booked on the charge of kidnapping.
Meanwhile, to ascertain the girl's well being, the court has directed the couple and in-laws to appear before the Child Welfare Committee once in every six months till the girl attains majority.
"The Committee shall take necessary steps, including obtaining the necessary undertaking from the man(husband) in this regard. Subject to completion of these steps, the girl be allowed to live in her matrimonial home," the bench said.
The girl has been currently residing in Nirmal Chhaya, a government sponsored home for rehabilitation of poor and elderly women.
Source: english.samaylive.com
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
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
Muslim girl can marry at 15 if she attains puberty: HC - Hindustan Times
"This court notes that according to Mohammedan Law a girl can marry without the consent of her parents once she attains the age of puberty and she has the right to reside with her husband even if she is below the age of 18....," a bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and SP Garg said.
Citing various Supreme Court judgements on the issue of minor Muslim girls' marriage, the bench said "In view of the above judgments, it is clear that a Muslim girl who has attained puberty i.e. 15 years can marry and such a marriage would not be a void marriage. However, she has the option of treating the marriage as voidable, at the time of her attaining the age of majority, i.e 18 years."
Accepting the 16-year-old girl's plea to allow her to stay in her matrimonial home, the bench has disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by the girl's mother alleging that her daughter was kidnapped by a youth and forced into marriage in April last year.
The bench accepted the girl's statement she had left her parental home of her own will to marry the man of her choice and her husband should not be booked on the charge of kidnapping.
Meanwhile, to ascertain the girl's well being, the court has directed the couple and in-laws to appear before the child welfare committee once in every six months till the girl attains majority.
"The committee shall take necessary steps, including obtaining the necessary undertaking from the man(husband) in this regard. Subject to completion of these steps, the girl be allowed to live in her matrimonial home," the bench said.
The girl has been currently residing in Nirmal Chhaya, a government sponsored home for rehabilitation of poor and elderly women.
According to the habeas corpus petition filed by the girl's mother, after abducting the girl who had Rs. 1.5 lakh on March 13, 2011, the man had telephoned her threatening to kidnap her other daughter if any legal action was taken against him.
The petitioner claimed that on March 19 last year she had also approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police and requested him to rescue her minor daughter from illegal detention.
As per the petition, on April 14, 2011 an FIR was registered with Gokalpuri police station in north-east Delhi alleging that the man had kidnapped her daughter.
The mother said police had not taken any action, forcing her to approach the high court.
During the hearing of her plea, the court had issued notice to police and subsequently police had produced the girl saying she had voluntarily gone with the man and married him.
Since then they have been staying as husband and wife, the police told the court.
On April 18, 2012 the girl had also told the court that she did not wish to go back to her parents and wanted to stay with her husband.
Meanwhile, she was kept in Nirmal Chhaya after her production before the Child Welfare Committee, which has stated that the girl was 15 years, 10 months and 23 days.
Source: www.hindustantimes.com
Bopara returns with a hundred to help Essex beat Gloucestershire - Bristol Evening Post
Ravi Bopara confirmed his recovery from a leg injury with a brilliant 120 not out as Essex easily reached their target of 225 to beat Gloucestershire by eight wickets in their match at Chelmsford and claim their first Clydesdale Bank 40 Group A victory of the season.
Bopara's injury had ruled him out for three weeks, but he was soon showing that his lay-off had not affected him. From the moment he walked out to open the innings, he took charge with a succession of superbly timed drives, and with Tom Westley striking the ball equally well at the other end, it soon became clear that Gloucestershire's total of 224-5 was not nearly enough.
-
Gloucestershire's Kane Williamson against Lancashire in Cheltenham on Sunday
The pair had come together after Mark Pettini's departure in the first over, when he was caught at slip off Ian Saxelby without a run on the board, and went on to put together a partnership of 185.
That was broken when Westley's enterprising knock of 82 from 99 balls, nine of which he dispatched to the boundary, ended as he was stumped off Will Gidman.
But Bopara, who raised his 50 with a straight driven six against left-arm spinner Ed Young, went on to complete his century from 91 deliveries, with two sixes and eight fours, and he was to add another four boundaries as Essex secured victory with 19 balls to spare.
Like Essex, the visitors had also seen their openers separated in the first over when Graham Napier breached the defences of Will Gidman, a dismissal that was to put them firmly on the back foot.
It was not until the 14th over that the 50 was raised, before which Hamish Marshall was beaten for pace and bowled by Tymal Mills. So pedestrian was Gloucestershire's progress that they needed 27 overs to send the total into three figures. But then Kane Williamson and Ian Cockbain were to inject much-needed life into the innings with a fifth-wicket partnership of 85 in 11 overs.
It ended when Williamson was caught behind by James Foster off David Masters for 77, which came from 73 deliveries and contained seven fours and a six.
Cockbain and Jack Taylor maintained the tempo over the remaining four overs, Cockbain finishing unbeaten on 52 from 44 balls with a six among his four boundaries.
Taylor's unbeaten 22 came off a dozen deliveries and ensured a respectable, if not demanding total.
Source: www.thisisbristol.co.uk
Law could dampen Mumbai's spirits - Independent Online
AFP
.
New Delhi - Want to drink in Mumbai? Do it at your own risk. Revellers in India's financial hub caught drinking alcohol without a licence face stiff fines and a stint in prison.
City authorities are cracking down on illegal drinking after busting a rave party in one of Mumbai's posh neighbourhoods last month.
A 63-year-old prohibition law requiring every adult above the age of 25 to get a drinking permit exists in India's western state of Maharashtra but it's never been taken seriously - until the rave party hogged media headlines.
“(This) will cause trouble to a lot of people, to common citizens,” said a senior excise department official in Maharashtra, the state of which Mumbai is the capital, on condition of anonymity.
“We have been sending proposals to the government to scrap this law because there is no meaning in having this law.”
Government permits are needed to consume, possess or transport alcohol - 5 rupees (around 10 cents) for a daily licence, 100 rupees ($2) for a year and 1 000 rupees ($18) for a lifetime permit.
While daily permits can be acquired from liquor vendors, those seeking a lifetime permit can get it from the excise department.
Individuals caught drinking without a permit could be fined 50 000 rupees ($895) or jailed for five years.
City police say they have little say in the matter.
“Once the law is there, we need to enforce it. So if it is not enforced, then it is the fault of the police,” said Rajnish Seth, one of the Mumbai's top police officials. “We have no option.”
Ashok Patel, an anti-corruption activist and the president of a merchant welfare association, says the permits allow the police to harass tipplers for bribes and encourages corruption.
“Many people have permits but they don't necessarily carry them around,” says Patel. “No one ever checked earlier either.”
Mumbai, the most populated city in India, is also home to Bollywood, the world's largest film industry.
Fondly referred to as “Aamchi Mumbai”, which means “Our Mumbai” in Marathi, the local language, the megalopolis is famous for its nightlife.
Kaushal Upreti, an entertainment and media professional, says authorities can use the 1949 law to harass people just because they want to party, especially on days like New Year's Eve.
“It has been a common practice by pubs, restaurants and bars to issue temporary permits for their customers on such days to avoid running into trouble with the police,” he said.
Upreti, a resident of Mumbai, doesn't mind getting a permit for himself but is not sure how the licence will work in practice.
“Just so that I can buy a few bottles and I can drink,” he says. “It does not make sense.” - Reuters
Source: www.iol.co.za
Law on teenage sex ‘regressive’ says critics - Khaleej Times
Under a provision in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act approved by parliament last month, sex with a person under the age of 18 will be deemed as statutory rape and subject to prosecution.
Once formally signed into law by the president, the new legislation will supersede a clause in India’s Penal Code that previously set the age of consent at 16 and will carry sentences ranging from three years to life imprisonment. Critics say the change is open to misuse by police and overprotective parents, puts India at odds with other countries and is further proof of a government run by elderly politicians out of touch with most of the country.
“We can’t pretend children are not sexually active when they are adolescents,” says one senior child welfare official working for a government body who did not want to be named. “This law is plain regressive.”
The third National Family Health Survey, the most recent comprehensive government study from 2005-2006, states that 43 per cent of women aged 20-24 had sex before they were 18. In rural areas, the high proportion is because of the prevalence of child marriage — more than 47 per cent of women aged 20-24 were married by 18 — while in urban areas attitudes on everything from religion to sex are changing.
Surveys from news magazines such as India Today and Outlook find young urban Indians are increasingly open to pre-marital intercourse and more exposed to sex through pornography or steamy films and television shows than ever before. — AFP
For Shantha Sinha, the chief of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, a state-funded body, the law was open to abuse.
“It can be used to the disadvantage of children if one has to settle scores,” she says, raising the scenario of under-age girls using the law against former partners even if the sex was consensual.
The police may be able to use it to “harass young couples in parks”, Sinha says, while partners who elope — a common occurrence in India where arranged marriages are the norm — could also be targeted.
“You have cases where young people in love elope to escape parental objections and censure. The parents can use this law and make it legally tough for them,” she said.
A trial court judge in New Delhi made the same observation during a hearing in the case of a man accused of kidnapping and raping a girl of 15. The judge acquitted the defendant and ruled the girl had eloped voluntarily.
The change in the law “will open the floodgates for prosecution of boys for offences of rape on the basis of complaints by girls’ parents irrespective of whether the girl was a consenting party,” noted the judge.
But experts in favour of the change say it will help protect the most vulnerable sections of society, including the millions of girls and young women who work as servants in Indian homes.
Amod Kanth, a former police officer who was part of the drafting process, argues that this consideration must override any other concerns in a country where child abuse is rife.
“We carried out a study in 2007 and found that nearly 53 per cent of children had suffered some kind of sexual abuse,” Kanth told AFP.
“We felt such children needed to be protected and that there should be a specific law for this.
“Tomorrow the same people who are asking for 16 as the legal age of consent will ask for 13,” he added.
The age of consent across the world ranges from 13 to 18, with many countries, including Britain, Norway and Canada setting it at 16, according to Avert, a British charity that works in sexual health.
A few states of the United States, including California, fix the age of consent at 18, but they include a “close-in-age” reprieve for teenagers who have consensual sex.
For Zafar and his friends, who study in a private school in New Delhi, the new law is a fresh example of restrictions imposed on youngsters by “insensitive” adults.
“Most of my friends have already made their sex debut,” said Zafar, 17, who asked to be identified by his first name only.
“Some are in serious relationships, some are doing it for fun, others because they are simply curious.”
The Childline Foundation, a non-profit agency that runs an emergency phone service for children in need of care, says the most important thing is making sex education compulsory in all schools across the country.
“This will help children make informed choices and avoid the pitfalls,” Komal Ganotra, advocacy and training specialist at the Foundation, said.
Source: www.khaleejtimes.com
im so glad all of you are perfect!!!! give them a break, they are a young couple having some fun, not out to be publically slated.
- mCat, glasgow, 05/6/2012 23:50
Report abuse