Saturday, 30 June 2012

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes to divorce - BBC News

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes to divorce - BBC News
29 June 2012 Last updated at 21:42 ET

It will be Tom Cruise's third divorce

Hollywood A-listers Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are divorcing, bringing an end to a five-year marriage.

The office of celebrity divorce lawyer Jonathan Wolfe confirmed the divorce. "This is a personal and private matter," he said in a statement.

They have a six-year-old daughter, Suri, and Cruise, 49, has two children from his marriage to Nicole Kidman.

Cruise married Holmes, 33, his third wife, in an Italian castle in November 2006.

A spokesman for Cruise told the BBC: "Kate has filed for divorce and Tom is deeply saddened and is concentrating on his three children. Please allow them their privacy."

TMZ News has reported that Holmes filed divorce papers in New York on Thursday, citing irreconcilable differences, and that she is seeking sole custody of their daughter.

Scientology wedding

The divorce brings to an end a relationship that began with very public declarations of affection.

Analysis

In Hollywood, people's mouths are hanging open. Apparently even Cruise did not see this coming. We know that Holmes tried to file for divorce anonymously but somehow her name got out. Cruise and Holmes were a popular couple but tended to keep to themselves.

But they have talked a lot about each other - about how much they loved each other - and although we do not know details about pre-nuptial agreements, we can be sure that if there are any, they have as much to do with secrecy as with money.

What we can expect next is a lot of wild speculation, especially over Holmes' request for sole custody of their daughter - people may wonder if Cruise's belief in Scientology was a factor in her decision.

Holmes once admitted she had a childhood crush on the Hollywood celebrity, while Cruise famously jumped on a sofa on the Oprah Winfrey Show as he declared his love for Holmes.

"I can't be cool. I can't be laid-back. Something happened and I want to celebrate it," Cruise said in his appearance on the show.

Cruise proposed to Holmes at the Eiffel Tower in Paris and the couple were married by a Church of Scientology minister.

The couple, who have not been seen together since February, are estimated to be worth about $275m (£175m) combined.

Tom Cruise is among Hollywood's highest-paid actors and has starred in blockbusters such as Top Gun, Jerry Maguire and the Mission Impossible series.

Earlier this week he was reported to be in Iceland shooting an upcoming film called Oblivion. He also starred in the recently released Rock Of Ages.

Katie Holmes rose to fame as a leading actress on US television drama Dawson's Creek. She has also appeared in Batman Begins and Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark.


Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Cruise 'deeply saddened' after Katie files for divorce - Times of India

Katie Holmes has filed for divorce in New York citing "irreconcilable differences", announcing the split via a statement to People magazine.

Hubby Tom Cruise, 49, said that he was "deeply saddened" by the news.

According to TMZ.com, Holmes, 33, has asked for sole legal custody of six-year-old daughter Suri, setting up the couple for a high profile legal battle if Cruise chooses to contest her claim.

The pair signed a prenuptial agreement before their wedding in November 2006, which guarantees Holmes a yearly sum.

However, legal experts said that the actor could be prepared to give up a larger slice of his 160-million-pound fortune in return for Holmes remaining silent about the details of their marriage.

Cruise remains one of the world's most bankable actors. The star of 'Top Gun' and the 'Mission: Impossible' franchise earned an estimated 50 million pounds last year alone and runs his own Hollywood production company.

"One thing you can rely on is that Tom Cruise will have an airtight pre-nup. This is a man who is in control of everything and the pre-nup will be pretty restrictive," the Telegraph quoted Michael Kelly, a leading Californian divorce lawyer who specialises in pre-nuptial agreements, as saying.

"He could choose to give Katie a bigger settlement, as Tiger Woods did with his wife, but that will be his choice.

"There is also the prospect of a custody dispute, which he will want to avoid," the lawyer said.

This will be the third divorce for Cruise. He was married to Mimi Rogers, the actress, from 1987-1990 and to Nicole Kidman from 1990-2001, with whom he adopted two children.

His relationship with Holmes, then an up-and-coming actress best known for her role in teen drama Dawson's Creek, began in April 2005.

Two months later, Cruise used a press conference in Paris to announce that he had proposed under the Eiffel Tower.

The wedding took place in November 2006, a lavish affair in an Italian castle with guests including the Beckhams and Giorgio Armani.

The couple were last photographed together in February and Miss Holmes was absent from the red carpet during Cruise's recent promotional tour for Rock of Ages.

"Kate has filed for divorce. Tom is deeply saddened and is concentrating on his three children," a spokesman for Cruise said.

The actor is currently in Iceland shooting a new sci-fi film, Oblivion.


Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Katie Holmes May Have Screwed Tom Cruise by Filing for Divorce In New York - TMZ.com
0629_tom_cruise_new_york_taxes
Katie Holmes' master plan to file for divorce in New York may have created HUGE tax problems for Tom Cruise ... sources connected with the couple tell TMZ.

TMZ broke the story ... Katie filed divorce docs in NYC, in large part because she wants sole legal custody of Suri and New York courts are way more likely to grant Katie sole legal custody and control over child-rearing decisions than California courts.

But here's the problem ... sources connected with the couple tell us ... Tom has been trying to do everything legally within his power to avoid strong ties to New York City because the tax rates are ridiculously high ... and he does not want any appearance that he or Katie have been living there.

But here's the thing ... TMZ has obtained documents which show Tom deeded their NYC apartment to Katie last August and our sources say it was done specifically for tax purposes.  Point of fact ... the deed lists a transfer to a trust, but TMZ has confirmed it's a trust established for the benefit of Katie.

Sources say Katie is using the apartment to establish residency in New York for the purpose of the divorce -- something we're told can screw Tom tax-wise.

It's pretty clear .... Tom is not gonna let Katie dictate New York as the venue for the divorce.  He clearly thinks Cal-i-for-ni-a's the place he outta be.


Source: www.tmz.com

Sussex Downs students get into the Olympic spirit - eastbourneherald.co.uk


Published on Saturday 30 June 2012 08:02

YEAR one BTEC Business students from the Eastbourne campus of Sussex Downs College recently held an Olympic event to celebrate London 2012.

The sponsored event was attended by the mayor and mayoress of Eastbourne with all the proceeds going to the team’s nominated charity, Great Ormond Street.

The games involved students from BTEC Sport and Sport Science who represented seven countries from Team GB to Team China. They competed in a wide range of events from fun activities such as tug of war, egg and spoon and relay race.

Organisers say the event was a triumph with all teams entering into the Olympic spirit. The medals were awarded by James Kirby, a student at Sussex Downs College, and Keith Leech a Science Lecturer at Park College, both of whom are Olympic Torch Bearers.

James will be running with the Olympic Torch in Lewes on July 17 and Keith will also be completing his run on July 17 in Hastings. Both were nominated for their outstanding work within the community.

The overall day was won by Team Australia, which in the end had a landslide victory. Second and third place however where contested between Team USA and Team GB, with Team USA taking second place after a nail biting relay final.

The teams were sponsored for each event and raised more than £500 which included money from Molly Woods, who raised £150 by herself.



Source: www.eastbourneherald.co.uk
Posted by at No comments:

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes Divorce: Who Will Get What? - Reuters

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes Divorce: Who Will Get What? - Reuters

By Deanne Katz, Esq. at FindLaw.com

Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:36pm EDT

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are seeking a divorce after almost six years of marriage.

It looks like there won't be a happy ending for TomKat and it looks like Holmes is the one who wants out. She filed for divorce on Thursday, June 28. The couple has quite a few assets to split, including a huge house in Beverly Hills, and they both have sizable incomes from their acting careers.

Not only that, they'll have to figure out how to share their 6-year-old daughter Suri Cruise.

The couple lives in Beverly Hills so California law will be applied to the separation of assets. California is a community property state, so normally a couple's assets must be split evenly in divorce. Any money earned would be split 50/50 as would any debt either Tom or Katie incurred during their marriage.

But like many celebrity couples, TomKat signed a prenuptial agreement before they tied the knot in 2006.

The Cruise-Holmes prenup wasn't made public but some details about it are known. Katie is entitled to $3 million for each year she was married to Cruise for a sweet total of almost $18 million according to reports from both Gawker and MSNBC. She also gets a "palatial" home in Montecito, California when the split is final.

Since the couple wasn't married for 11 years, the prenup explicitly states that community property laws won't apply to the divorce, MSNBC reports.

That means when the couple parts ways each will keep their respective earnings from the projects they've worked on since November 2006. That's in addition to the $3 million per year Cruise will give to Holmes.

Prenups are not allowed to let one spouse out of child support, even if there are already children. Suri was born several months before her parents married. The amount of child support will likely be up for negotiation.

Holmes filed for primary residential custody of Suri and sole legal custody according to TMZ. That means only Holmes would have the right to make decisions about Suri's health, school, and other important topics.

Given Tom Cruise's previous divorces, he won't take that lying down. Cruise will likely fight Katie Holmes for greater custody of Suri, both residential and legal. Cruise shares custody of his two other children with ex-wife Nicole Kidman.

Related Resources:

  • How to Determine if a Prenuptial Agreement is Right for You (FindLaw)
  • Predicting Celebrity Divorce May Be A Science (The Houston Family Law Blog)
  • Katie Holmes Gets Front-Page Apology, Settles Suit (FindLaw's Celebrity Justice)

Source: www.reuters.com

Wye salmon by-law on landing fish welcomed - BBC News
29 June 2012 Last updated at 02:04 ET By Nick Dermody BBC Wales News

A ban on landing salmon from the river Wye in both Wales and England has been called "better late than never" by the head of the river's watchdog.

The by-law means anglers must return catches of salmon and sea trout or face a substantial fine.

Environment Agency Wales said the rule would help more fish to survive and boost the declining population.

Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith, of the Wye and Usk Foundation, said salmon numbers had been recovering for 10 years.

The by-law approved this week by the Welsh government and Defra could be in place for up to 10 years.

“Start Quote

If we had done this 10 years ago, we might be looking at removing the restriction now”

End Quote Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith, director Wye and Usk Foundation

Environment Agency Wales' Pete Gough said: "The majority of anglers are very responsible and do release the salmon and sea trout they catch.

"However, there are some that continue to kill the fish before they have a chance to spawn upstream."

Began to plummet

The agency said with its main partner, the Wye and Usk Foundation, it had built fish passes and removed barriers to improve access for migratory fish and improve water quality.

The new by-law follows on from a ban on landing catches which ended this month

It aims to address the collapse in fish stocks on the Wye, formerly one of the best salmon fishing rivers in Europe, said Dr Marsh-Smith.

Dr Marsh-Smith, Wye and Usk Foundation director, said its work with anglers had already seen fish numbers rise steadily since the species' lowest population figures were recorded in 2002.

Salmon numbers in the river began to plummet in the mid 1970s, he said.

"It's never been a great sea trout river but if you examine the way salmon was falling, they would have been extinct by 2005.

"This year is very much a recovery year. We are seeing encouraging numbers of very big fish."

Dr Marsh-Smith said the foundation had proposed the catch ban in 1996.

"If we had done this 10 years ago, we might be looking at removing the restriction now."

However, he welcomed the by-law as a way of being fairer to the 80% of anglers who already safely return their catch to the river.

"If you get a situation where 80% comply and 20% don't, then it's very unfair on those who do comply."

He estimated that the angling industry on the Wye generates about £5m a year, half of what he said it should be.

Natural beauty

The Wye, the fifth-longest river in the UK, was voted the public's favourite river in England and Wales in 2010.

Running some 153 miles (246km) from its source on the slopes of Plynlimon to the Severn Estuary near Chepstow, Monmouthshire, it winds its way through or past Rhayader, Builth Wells, Hay-on-Wye, Hereford, Ross-on-Wye, Symonds Yat, Monmouth and Tintern.

The river is a site of special scientific interest (SSI)and much of the lower Wye valley is designated an area of outstanding natural beauty.


Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Jigsaw helps take the stress out of divorce - The Bolton News

Jigsaw helps take the stress out of divorce

9:36am Friday 29th June 2012 in Local

A LAW firm specialising in resolving marital disputes has opened in Bolton.

Divorce Jigsaw offers mediation and collaborative law for families going through the stress of separation.

Solicitor Elizabeth Tait worked for a number of Bolton and Manchester law firms before launching her own business in Chorley New Road.

She said: “Divorce and separation can be a traumatic and difficult time for couples and their children.

“Things can sometimes feel out of control and conflicts can quickly intensify and turn toxic, damaging parents and children alike.

“I believe that there is another way to divorce that avoids the toll of court proceedings, both in terms of costs and emotional upheaval, and yet acknowledges the significance of this major change with all that it entails.

“I seek to work with divorcing couples in partnership with a view to creating lasting and fair solutions with care and sensitivity, always keeping the interests of any children at the heart of the conversation.“ The 46-year-old is an experienced family lawyer who is a recognised expert and trainer in collaborative law and mediation.

Originally from Coventry, she studied law at Cambridge University and previously specialised in family law in the region for the past 22 years.

She headed family departments at both Stephensons solicitors in Bolton and Irwin Mitchell solicitors.

Miss Tait is also one of the founders of the Manchester Collaborative Law Group and the Brighter Futures North West Collaborative Group, and trains other solicitors.

She added: “I believe it is possible for couples to divorce with dignity and achieve a child-focused outcome — one where everyone will be okay.”


Source: www.theboltonnews.co.uk

Republicans launch blitz against health care law - CNN

Washington (CNN) -- Republicans launched a blistering attack Friday on the health care reform law upheld by the Supreme Court, seeking to rally their base's opposition to the measure to bolster their fortunes in the November election.

Using the court's finding that the centerpiece of the law -- the individual mandate -- amounted to a legal exercise of congressional taxing power, GOP leaders accused President Barack Obama and Democrats of deceiving the nation about the Affordable Care Act during debate on the measure in 2009 and 2010.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky led the charge, saying Democrats used a "deeply dishonest sales pitch" to overcome public opposition to the measure back then.

"Nearly every day since then, the promises that formed the heart of that sales pitch have been exposed for the false promises they were," McConnell said on the Senate floor, adding that the Supreme Court decision Thursday provided "powerful confirmation of what may have been the biggest deception of all."

He urged Democrats to stop "trying to defend the indefensible" and join with Republicans to repeal the health care law.

Health care ruling gives GOP new attack line

Meanwhile, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, a tea party favorite and leading opponent of health care reform, said she and congressional colleagues were sending a letter to state officials urging them not to implement the health care bill until after the November vote.

"All across job creator boardrooms today, decisions are being made by millions of employers to drop the employer covered health insurance," Bachmann claimed Friday on CNN. "That's why we're telling the states just stop, take a breath, because we're going to turn the economy around after November."

The polarizing law is the signature legislation of Obama's time in office, and opposition to it helped spur the creation of the conservative tea party movement.

Friday's rhetoric by McConnell and other Republicans reflected their shock and anger at the high court decision, which rejected the challenges of opponents who contended the health care law was unconstitutional.

Breaking down the court's decision

In a 5-4 ruling, the court decided the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance was valid as a tax, even though it was impermissible under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

The most anticipated Supreme Court ruling in years allows the government to continue implementing the health care law, which doesn't take full effect until 2014. That means popular provisions that prohibit insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions and allow parents to keep their children on family policies to the age of 26 will continue.

Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts: The decider

However, Republican opponents of the law's expansion of government vowed to continue fighting to repeal it, with certain presidential nominee Mitt Romney saying that defeating Obama in November is the only way to meet that goal.

Both presidential campaigns are citing fundraising spikes after the Supreme Court's decision.

Romney's organization said Friday that it had raised $4.6 million online, and Obama's operation, while not revealing specific numbers, said it had surpassed that total.

The individual mandate is the linchpin of the health care law signed by Obama in 2010 after an epic brawl in Congress in which no Republicans supported the measure.

Obama has denied that the mandate is a tax, including in a 2009 interview with ABC in which he compared it to state requirements that motorists carry auto insurance.

"Nobody considers that a tax increase," Obama said then. "People say to themselves, 'that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.' "

At least 4 million people are expected to pay a penalty for not having health insurance when the rule takes full effect in 2016, bringing in about $54 billion to help offset the $1.7 trillion, 10-year cost of the act, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

It's one of several revenue-raising provisions in the health care law, according to Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist and co-author of a 2010 book on the health care battle.

Who's going to treat you?

Under the health care law when it is fully implemented in coming years, most Americans will be covered by employee health plans, either their own or that of a head of household, or by existing government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid or veterans' benefits, Jacobs noted.

Of the roughly 6% of the population remaining, a large portion of those will be exempted from the mandate because of poverty, religious beliefs or other reasons, he said.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday that the fine for failing to have health insurance once the law is fully implemented is "a penalty, because you have a choice" of whether to obtain it.

"If you don't buy it, and you can afford it, it is an irresponsible thing to do to ask the rest of America's taxpayers to pay for your care when you go to the emergency room," Carney said. "So your choice is to purchase health (insurance), or a penalty will be administered."

By the numbers: Health insurance

Bachmann's allegation that the health care law would lead to fewer U.S. jobs was challenged on CNN by Democratic Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware.

"If they're not hiring, it's because they don't have demand," Markell said. "What they care most about when they're deciding whether to hire is where do they have access to the greatest work force. I mean, these charges are just ridiculous."

Democrats also noted that Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, implemented an individual mandate similar to the concept in the federal law.

Romney contends that the Massachusetts law was tailored to the state's needs and that such a solution was improper at the federal level. He called the law known as Obamacare bad policy and a bad law on the federal level.

That didn't stop Democratic Rep. Steve Israel of New York from noting on CNN that Romney "actually defended what he called a penalty" during his term as Massachusetts governor.

"Not my words, Mitt Romney's words, were the free riders -- who chose not to get health insurance but shift those costs onto society -- need to pay their fair share," Israel said. "I didn't call them free riders. Mitt Romney did."

In Thursday's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "the federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. ... The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."

Roberts joined the high court's liberal wing -- Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- in upholding the law.

Read the ruling (PDF)

Four conservative justices -- Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas -- dissented.

"To say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it," the dissenting justices wrote in their opinion. "Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry."

How the court voted

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday indicated that 37% of Americans would have been pleased if the law had been found unconstitutional, compared with 28% who would have been pleased if it had been found constitutional. And the poll of 1,000 U.S. adults found that nearly four in 10 surveyed would have "mixed feelings" had the justices struck down the whole law.

Obama, in televised remarks, called Thursday's Supreme Court ruling a victory for the nation.

He used the focus on the issue to spell out the benefits of the law that remains unpopular with many Americans. The principle upheld by the high court's ruling is that no American should go bankrupt because of illness, the president said.

"I know the debate over this law has been divisive," Obama said. "It should be pretty clear that I didn't do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believe it is good for the country."

He said the country can't afford "to refight the political battle of two years ago or go back to the way things were."

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who helped push through the law when she was House speaker, cited the late Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, a longtime proponent of health care reform who died before the bill became law.

"Now he can rest in peace," she said, echoing what she'd earlier told Kennedy's widow by phone.

In his opinion, Roberts appeared to note the political divisions, writing that "we do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies."

"That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders," the opinion said. "We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."

The narrow focus of the ruling on key issues such as the individual mandate -- limiting it to taxing powers rather than general commerce -- represented the court's effort to limit the government's authority.

"The framers created a federal government of limited powers and assigned to this court the duty of enforcing those limits," Roberts wrote. "The court does so today."

In another part of Thursday's decision, the high court ruled that a part of the law involving Medicaid must change.

The law calls for an expansion of eligibility for Medicaid, which involves spending by the federal government and the states, and threatens to remove existing Medicaid funding from states that don't participate in the expansion. Thursday's ruling said the government must remove that threat.


Source: www.cnn.com

Tom Cruise & Katie Holmes Divorce -- Scientology Was Her Breaking Point - TMZ.com
0629-katie-tom-4
Katie Holmes filed for divorce primarily over Tom Cruise's fierce ties to Scientology, fearing that Tom would drag Suri deep into the church ... sources connected with the couple tell TMZ.

Our sources say ... Katie has never been fully committed to Scientology, even though she has had ties with the church.  We're told the couple had been arguing over Suri -- that she's now of the age where Scientology becomes a significant part of her life.

Sources familiar with the split tell us Katie is filing for sole legal custody -- as we first reported -- specifically because she does not want Tom to control decisions relating to religion.

Sources have told us that the divorce is NOT about money -- we're told Katie doesn't need Tom's money ... because she has plenty of it ... and will be well taken care of under the terms of the prenup. 

To give you an idea of how fierce Tom's ties to the Church are -- a video featuring the actor discussing what Scientology means to him leaked onto YouTube in 2008. You gotta watch the whole thing.


Source: www.tmz.com

Katy Perry opens up about divorce - Big Pond

Pop singer Katy Perry has openly discussed her divorce with British comedian Russell Brand and her offstage life as she prepares for the premiere of her documentary film, 'Katy Perry: Part of Me.'

The singer documented her life on and off-stage from the beginning of her career to her 'California Dreams' world tour in 2011 and her short marriage to comedian Russell Brand.

'I think it was best that I captured it all because you can't always go back and get it. And, I wanted it to be organic and natural and I had this idea to document everything because I thought something big was happening for me, in my career and in my life,' said Perry.

The film features intimate moments of Perry's whirlwind marriage and divorce with actor and comedian Russell Brand.

According to Perry, it would have been dishonest of her to avoid any part of her life. The singer said she wants fans to know that even she has to overcome life's 'curveballs.'

'I was very careful every step of the way. That's why we didn't sell our wedding photos and that's why we're both trying to keep it between each other. But, it is a lesson learned and I hope that...everybody has to know that, obviously, if you have problems it's ok and you're not alone in what you think are your unique problems,' said the 27-year old songstress.

Since the divorce, Perry's music has had a decidedly different sound and she claims it might be time for a musical change.

'Well, I can't always be the candy queen so, maybe it's time for a little bit more meat and potatoes,' said Perry.

'Katy Perry: Part of Me' hits Australian theatres on July 5.


Source: bigpondnews.com

Cruise and Holmes set to divorce - The Guardian

Holmes' attorney Jonathan Wolfe said on Friday that the couple are divorcing but called it a private matter for the family.

Cruise, 49, wed 33-year-old Holmes in 2006 in an Italian castle after publicly declaring his love on Oprah Winfrey's television show, emphatically jumping on her couch.

The couple have a six-year-old daughter, Suri.

The plan to divorce was first reported by People magazine.

Cruise, currently starring in Rock of Ages, was previously married to Mimi Rogers and Nicole Kidman, with whom he has two children.

Mr Wolfe said: "This is a personal and private matter for Katie and her family.

"Katie's primary concern remains, as it always has been, her daughter's best interest."

Cruise's representative Amanda Lundberg said: "Kate has filed for divorce and Tom is deeply saddened and is concentrating on his three children.

"Please allow them their privacy to work this out."

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2012, All Rights Reserved.


Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Divorce Unlikely to Hurt Tom Cruise at the Box Office - Forbes

Today’s news that Katie Holmes has filed for divorce from Tom Cruise is a sad turn of events in what has otherwise been an incredible year for Cruise. We recently ranked Cruise as the ninth most powerful person on our Celebrity 100 list. Thanks to Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol, residuals and upfront money for some other big films, we estimate Cruise earned $75 million between May 2011 and May 2012.

Those stats represented a big career comeback for Cruise who in the last five years has struggled a bit at the box office. In 2006 the third Mission: Impossible movie didn’t live up to expectations bringing on “only” $400 million at the box office. That coupled with Cruise’s erratic behavior around his new relationship with Holmes (couch jumping anyone?) and some embarrassing Scientology videos hurt Cruise from a publicity standpoint and at the box office. Movies like Lions for Lambs and Valkyrie were far from blockbusters.

But now, Cruise seems to be back in Hollywood’s good graces. (A $700 million box office will do that.) Could a divorce put the brakes on Cruise’s hot career?

It seems unlikely, unless some really ugly stuff comes out in the divorce proceedings. Cruise’s current film, Rock of Ages, hasn’t done that well at the box office but Cruise has been universally praised for his work as rocker Stacee Jaxx. Cruise has already filmed his next movie, Jack Reacher, which hits theaters this fall. The film is a smaller-budgeted movie about a homicide investigator.

After that Cruise returns to big-budget blockbusters with Oblivion which is currently shooting in New Orleans. The Universal sci-fi film, which stars Cruise as a soldier sent to destroy an alien race, is slated to hit theaters in April.

Those projects show that studios still have a lot of faith in Cruise and his ability to attract viewers around the globe. If those films flop though, it will do much more damage to his career than a divorce.

 Follow me on Twitter at DorothyatForbes.


Source: www.forbes.com

Rottenstein Law Group Disappointed by Outcome of FDA's Hip Implant Meeting - YAHOO!

The Rottenstein Law Group, which represents clients with injuries allegedly caused by hip replacement devices, is frustrated by the FDA's failure to take aggressive measures to protect patients from metal-on-metal hip implants despite the negative opinions of the devices expressed by experts at a special meeting convened by the FDA this week.

New York, NY (PRWEB) June 29, 2012

The Rottenstein Law Group, which represents clients with injuries allegedly caused by hip replacement devices, is frustrated by the FDA's failure to take aggressive measures to protect patients from metal-on-metal hip implants despite the negative opinions of the devices expressed by experts at a special meeting convened by the FDA this week.

At the FDA meeting, which took place on June 27 & 28, 2012, an 18-member panel was enlisted to recommend guidelines for monitoring the more than a half-million U.S. patients with metal hip replacements, according to a June 29 Fox News article. The panel members said "there are few reasons to continue using metal-on-metal hip implants amid growing evidence that the devices can break down early and expose patients to dangerous metallic particles," according to Fox News.

Despite statements like these, FDA regulators neither initiated a recall nor required the discontinuation of the metal-on-metal hip implants that remain on the market, and instead suggested that FDA scientists "want to take more time to sort out the differences between various implants and patient groups before making recommendations," Fox News reported, adding that "public health advocates say it could take a decade before that information is available."

"Keeping these metal-on-metal hips on the market for the next five to 10 years while research is conducted is not ethical," Fox News quotes Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families, as having said during the meeting's public comment session. "If the companies want to sell metal-on-metal hips, they should be required to prove their safety first."

As the advocate of hundreds of patients who allege they suffered serious injuries as result of metal-on-metal hip implants, the Rottenstein Law Group agrees wholeheartedly with Ms. Zuckerman's comment. The firm's attorneys believe the only way to adequately ensure hip-replacement patients' safety is to require that all metal-on-metal hip implants be removed from the market. (So far, only the DePuy ASR hip implant has been taken off the market. Because data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales showed "a higher than expected revision rate" for that device, its manufacturer recalled it in 2010, according to an August 24, 2010, recall notice that DePuy Orthopaedics issued to clinicians.)

As RLG's principal, Rochelle Rottenstein, told Medical Device + Diagnostic Industry magazine earlier this week, RLG also believes it's important to enact legislation making it illegal for medical devices to obtain FDA approval without having been tested on humans simply because those devices are substantially similar to another medical device that the FDA once approved but may or may not have since been taken off the market.

Rottenstein also told MD+D that she believes it's important for the FDA to start requiring the use of unique device identifiers (UDIs) that would enable the FDA to better track medical device malfunctions. “UDIs are bar-code-like identifiers that the FDA plans to eventually assign to medical devices," she explained.

DePuy Pinnacle hip implants and DePuy ASR hip implants are among the metal-on-metal hip replacement systems that have allegedly caused patients serious injury. The Rottenstein Law Group maintains a DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuit Information Center at http://www.depuyhipreplacementlawsuit.com. The site has features that allow for easy sharing, including links for automatic posting on Facebook and Twitter, specifically to enable visitors to spread the word about the DePuy Pinnacle failures.

If you received a DePuy hip implant and you believe it caused you to suffer dangerous side effects, visit the Rottenstein Law Group's DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuit Information Center.

About THE ROTTENSTEIN LAW GROUP


The Rottenstein Law Group is a New York-based law firm that represents clients in mass tort actions. The firm was founded by Rochelle Rottenstein, who has more than two decades of experience as a lawyer, to represent clients in consumer product injury, mass tort, and class action lawsuits in a compassionate manner.

# # #

Contact:


The Rottenstein Law Group, LLP


Rochelle Rottenstein, Esq.


321 W. 44th Street


Suite 511


New York, New York 10036


(212) 933-9500 (office phone)


(212) 933-9980 (facsimile)


rochelle (at) rotlaw (dot) com


http://www.rotlaw.com


###

Rochelle Rottenstein, Esq.
The Rottenstein Law Group, LLP
(212) 933-9500
Email Information



Source: news.yahoo.com
Posted by at No comments:

Wye salmon by-law on landing fish welcomed - BBC News

Wye salmon by-law on landing fish welcomed - BBC News
29 June 2012 Last updated at 02:04 ET By Nick Dermody BBC Wales News

A ban on landing salmon from the river Wye in both Wales and England has been called "better late than never" by the head of the river's watchdog.

The by-law means anglers must return catches of salmon and sea trout or face a substantial fine.

Environment Agency Wales said the rule would help more fish to survive and boost the declining population.

Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith, of the Wye and Usk Foundation, said salmon numbers had been recovering for 10 years.

The by-law approved this week by the Welsh government and Defra could be in place for up to 10 years.

“Start Quote

If we had done this 10 years ago, we might be looking at removing the restriction now”

End Quote Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith, director Wye and Usk Foundation

Environment Agency Wales' Pete Gough said: "The majority of anglers are very responsible and do release the salmon and sea trout they catch.

"However, there are some that continue to kill the fish before they have a chance to spawn upstream."

Began to plummet

The agency said with its main partner, the Wye and Usk Foundation, it had built fish passes and removed barriers to improve access for migratory fish and improve water quality.

The new by-law follows on from a ban on landing catches which ended this month

It aims to address the collapse in fish stocks on the Wye, formerly one of the best salmon fishing rivers in Europe, said Dr Marsh-Smith.

Dr Marsh-Smith, Wye and Usk Foundation director, said its work with anglers had already seen fish numbers rise steadily since the species' lowest population figures were recorded in 2002.

Salmon numbers in the river began to plummet in the mid 1970s, he said.

"It's never been a great sea trout river but if you examine the way salmon was falling, they would have been extinct by 2005.

"This year is very much a recovery year. We are seeing encouraging numbers of very big fish."

Dr Marsh-Smith said the foundation had proposed the catch ban in 1996.

"If we had done this 10 years ago, we might be looking at removing the restriction now."

However, he welcomed the by-law as a way of being fairer to the 80% of anglers who already safely return their catch to the river.

"If you get a situation where 80% comply and 20% don't, then it's very unfair on those who do comply."

He estimated that the angling industry on the Wye generates about £5m a year, half of what he said it should be.

Natural beauty

The Wye, the fifth-longest river in the UK, was voted the public's favourite river in England and Wales in 2010.

Running some 153 miles (246km) from its source on the slopes of Plynlimon to the Severn Estuary near Chepstow, Monmouthshire, it winds its way through or past Rhayader, Builth Wells, Hay-on-Wye, Hereford, Ross-on-Wye, Symonds Yat, Monmouth and Tintern.

The river is a site of special scientific interest (SSI)and much of the lower Wye valley is designated an area of outstanding natural beauty.


Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Republicans launch blitz against health care law - CNN

Washington (CNN) -- Republicans launched a blistering attack Friday on the health care reform law upheld by the Supreme Court, seeking to rally their base's opposition to the measure to bolster their fortunes in the November election.

Using the court's finding that the centerpiece of the law -- the individual mandate -- amounted to a legal exercise of congressional taxing power, GOP leaders accused President Barack Obama and Democrats of deceiving the nation about the Affordable Care Act during debate on the measure in 2009 and 2010.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky led the charge, saying Democrats used a "deeply dishonest sales pitch" to overcome public opposition to the measure back then.

"Nearly every day since then, the promises that formed the heart of that sales pitch have been exposed for the false promises they were," McConnell said on the Senate floor, adding that the Supreme Court decision Thursday provided "powerful confirmation of what may have been the biggest deception of all."

He urged Democrats to stop "trying to defend the indefensible" and join with Republicans to repeal the health care law.

Health care ruling gives GOP new attack line

Meanwhile, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, a tea party favorite and leading opponent of health care reform, said she and congressional colleagues were sending a letter to state officials urging them not to implement the health care bill until after the November vote.

"All across job creator boardrooms today, decisions are being made by millions of employers to drop the employer covered health insurance," Bachmann claimed Friday on CNN. "That's why we're telling the states just stop, take a breath, because we're going to turn the economy around after November."

The polarizing law is the signature legislation of Obama's time in office, and opposition to it helped spur the creation of the conservative tea party movement.

Friday's rhetoric by McConnell and other Republicans reflected their shock and anger at the high court decision, which rejected the challenges of opponents who contended the health care law was unconstitutional.

Breaking down the court's decision

In a 5-4 ruling, the court decided the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance was valid as a tax, even though it was impermissible under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

The most anticipated Supreme Court ruling in years allows the government to continue implementing the health care law, which doesn't take full effect until 2014. That means popular provisions that prohibit insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions and allow parents to keep their children on family policies to the age of 26 will continue.

Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts: The decider

However, Republican opponents of the law's expansion of government vowed to continue fighting to repeal it, with certain presidential nominee Mitt Romney saying that defeating Obama in November is the only way to meet that goal.

Both presidential campaigns are citing fundraising spikes after the Supreme Court's decision.

Romney's organization said Friday that it had raised $4.6 million online, and Obama's operation, while not revealing specific numbers, said it had surpassed that total.

The individual mandate is the linchpin of the health care law signed by Obama in 2010 after an epic brawl in Congress in which no Republicans supported the measure.

Obama has denied that the mandate is a tax, including in a 2009 interview with ABC in which he compared it to state requirements that motorists carry auto insurance.

"Nobody considers that a tax increase," Obama said then. "People say to themselves, 'that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.' "

At least 4 million people are expected to pay a penalty for not having health insurance when the rule takes full effect in 2016, bringing in about $54 billion to help offset the $1.7 trillion, 10-year cost of the act, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

It's one of several revenue-raising provisions in the health care law, according to Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist and co-author of a 2010 book on the health care battle.

Who's going to treat you?

Under the health care law when it is fully implemented in coming years, most Americans will be covered by employee health plans, either their own or that of a head of household, or by existing government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid or veterans' benefits, Jacobs noted.

Of the roughly 6% of the population remaining, a large portion of those will be exempted from the mandate because of poverty, religious beliefs or other reasons, he said.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday that the fine for failing to have health insurance once the law is fully implemented is "a penalty, because you have a choice" of whether to obtain it.

"If you don't buy it, and you can afford it, it is an irresponsible thing to do to ask the rest of America's taxpayers to pay for your care when you go to the emergency room," Carney said. "So your choice is to purchase health (insurance), or a penalty will be administered."

By the numbers: Health insurance

Bachmann's allegation that the health care law would lead to fewer U.S. jobs was challenged on CNN by Democratic Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware.

"If they're not hiring, it's because they don't have demand," Markell said. "What they care most about when they're deciding whether to hire is where do they have access to the greatest work force. I mean, these charges are just ridiculous."

Democrats also noted that Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, implemented an individual mandate similar to the concept in the federal law.

Romney contends that the Massachusetts law was tailored to the state's needs and that such a solution was improper at the federal level. He called the law known as Obamacare bad policy and a bad law on the federal level.

That didn't stop Democratic Rep. Steve Israel of New York from noting on CNN that Romney "actually defended what he called a penalty" during his term as Massachusetts governor.

"Not my words, Mitt Romney's words, were the free riders -- who chose not to get health insurance but shift those costs onto society -- need to pay their fair share," Israel said. "I didn't call them free riders. Mitt Romney did."

In Thursday's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "the federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. ... The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."

Roberts joined the high court's liberal wing -- Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- in upholding the law.

Read the ruling (PDF)

Four conservative justices -- Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas -- dissented.

"To say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it," the dissenting justices wrote in their opinion. "Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry."

How the court voted

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday indicated that 37% of Americans would have been pleased if the law had been found unconstitutional, compared with 28% who would have been pleased if it had been found constitutional. And the poll of 1,000 U.S. adults found that nearly four in 10 surveyed would have "mixed feelings" had the justices struck down the whole law.

Obama, in televised remarks, called Thursday's Supreme Court ruling a victory for the nation.

He used the focus on the issue to spell out the benefits of the law that remains unpopular with many Americans. The principle upheld by the high court's ruling is that no American should go bankrupt because of illness, the president said.

"I know the debate over this law has been divisive," Obama said. "It should be pretty clear that I didn't do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believe it is good for the country."

He said the country can't afford "to refight the political battle of two years ago or go back to the way things were."

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who helped push through the law when she was House speaker, cited the late Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, a longtime proponent of health care reform who died before the bill became law.

"Now he can rest in peace," she said, echoing what she'd earlier told Kennedy's widow by phone.

In his opinion, Roberts appeared to note the political divisions, writing that "we do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies."

"That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders," the opinion said. "We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."

The narrow focus of the ruling on key issues such as the individual mandate -- limiting it to taxing powers rather than general commerce -- represented the court's effort to limit the government's authority.

"The framers created a federal government of limited powers and assigned to this court the duty of enforcing those limits," Roberts wrote. "The court does so today."

In another part of Thursday's decision, the high court ruled that a part of the law involving Medicaid must change.

The law calls for an expansion of eligibility for Medicaid, which involves spending by the federal government and the states, and threatens to remove existing Medicaid funding from states that don't participate in the expansion. Thursday's ruling said the government must remove that threat.


Source: www.cnn.com

Rottenstein Law Group Disappointed by Outcome of FDA's Hip Implant Meeting - YAHOO!

The Rottenstein Law Group, which represents clients with injuries allegedly caused by hip replacement devices, is frustrated by the FDA's failure to take aggressive measures to protect patients from metal-on-metal hip implants despite the negative opinions of the devices expressed by experts at a special meeting convened by the FDA this week.

New York, NY (PRWEB) June 29, 2012

The Rottenstein Law Group, which represents clients with injuries allegedly caused by hip replacement devices, is frustrated by the FDA's failure to take aggressive measures to protect patients from metal-on-metal hip implants despite the negative opinions of the devices expressed by experts at a special meeting convened by the FDA this week.

At the FDA meeting, which took place on June 27 & 28, 2012, an 18-member panel was enlisted to recommend guidelines for monitoring the more than a half-million U.S. patients with metal hip replacements, according to a June 29 Fox News article. The panel members said "there are few reasons to continue using metal-on-metal hip implants amid growing evidence that the devices can break down early and expose patients to dangerous metallic particles," according to Fox News.

Despite statements like these, FDA regulators neither initiated a recall nor required the discontinuation of the metal-on-metal hip implants that remain on the market, and instead suggested that FDA scientists "want to take more time to sort out the differences between various implants and patient groups before making recommendations," Fox News reported, adding that "public health advocates say it could take a decade before that information is available."

"Keeping these metal-on-metal hips on the market for the next five to 10 years while research is conducted is not ethical," Fox News quotes Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families, as having said during the meeting's public comment session. "If the companies want to sell metal-on-metal hips, they should be required to prove their safety first."

As the advocate of hundreds of patients who allege they suffered serious injuries as result of metal-on-metal hip implants, the Rottenstein Law Group agrees wholeheartedly with Ms. Zuckerman's comment. The firm's attorneys believe the only way to adequately ensure hip-replacement patients' safety is to require that all metal-on-metal hip implants be removed from the market. (So far, only the DePuy ASR hip implant has been taken off the market. Because data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales showed "a higher than expected revision rate" for that device, its manufacturer recalled it in 2010, according to an August 24, 2010, recall notice that DePuy Orthopaedics issued to clinicians.)

As RLG's principal, Rochelle Rottenstein, told Medical Device + Diagnostic Industry magazine earlier this week, RLG also believes it's important to enact legislation making it illegal for medical devices to obtain FDA approval without having been tested on humans simply because those devices are substantially similar to another medical device that the FDA once approved but may or may not have since been taken off the market.

Rottenstein also told MD+D that she believes it's important for the FDA to start requiring the use of unique device identifiers (UDIs) that would enable the FDA to better track medical device malfunctions. “UDIs are bar-code-like identifiers that the FDA plans to eventually assign to medical devices," she explained.

DePuy Pinnacle hip implants and DePuy ASR hip implants are among the metal-on-metal hip replacement systems that have allegedly caused patients serious injury. The Rottenstein Law Group maintains a DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuit Information Center at http://www.depuyhipreplacementlawsuit.com. The site has features that allow for easy sharing, including links for automatic posting on Facebook and Twitter, specifically to enable visitors to spread the word about the DePuy Pinnacle failures.

If you received a DePuy hip implant and you believe it caused you to suffer dangerous side effects, visit the Rottenstein Law Group's DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuit Information Center.

About THE ROTTENSTEIN LAW GROUP


The Rottenstein Law Group is a New York-based law firm that represents clients in mass tort actions. The firm was founded by Rochelle Rottenstein, who has more than two decades of experience as a lawyer, to represent clients in consumer product injury, mass tort, and class action lawsuits in a compassionate manner.

# # #

Contact:


The Rottenstein Law Group, LLP


Rochelle Rottenstein, Esq.


321 W. 44th Street


Suite 511


New York, New York 10036


(212) 933-9500 (office phone)


(212) 933-9980 (facsimile)


rochelle (at) rotlaw (dot) com


http://www.rotlaw.com


###

Rochelle Rottenstein, Esq.
The Rottenstein Law Group, LLP
(212) 933-9500
Email Information



Source: news.yahoo.com
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, 29 June 2012

Wye salmon by-law on landing fish welcomed - BBC News

Wye salmon by-law on landing fish welcomed - BBC News
29 June 2012 Last updated at 02:04 ET By Nick Dermody BBC Wales News

A ban on landing salmon from the river Wye in both Wales and England has been called "better late than never" by the head of the river's watchdog.

The by-law means anglers must return catches of salmon and sea trout or face a substantial fine.

Environment Agency Wales said the rule would help more fish to survive and boost the declining population.

Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith, of the Wye and Usk Foundation, said salmon numbers had been recovering for 10 years.

The by-law approved this week by the Welsh government and Defra could be in place for up to 10 years.

“Start Quote

If we had done this 10 years ago, we might be looking at removing the restriction now”

End Quote Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith, director Wye and Usk Foundation

Environment Agency Wales' Pete Gough said: "The majority of anglers are very responsible and do release the salmon and sea trout they catch.

"However, there are some that continue to kill the fish before they have a chance to spawn upstream."

Began to plummet

The agency said with its main partner, the Wye and Usk Foundation, it had built fish passes and removed barriers to improve access for migratory fish and improve water quality.

The new by-law follows on from a ban on landing catches which ended this month

It aims to address the collapse in fish stocks on the Wye, formerly one of the best salmon fishing rivers in Europe, said Dr Marsh-Smith.

Dr Marsh-Smith, Wye and Usk Foundation director, said its work with anglers had already seen fish numbers rise steadily since the species' lowest population figures were recorded in 2002.

Salmon numbers in the river began to plummet in the mid 1970s, he said.

"It's never been a great sea trout river but if you examine the way salmon was falling, they would have been extinct by 2005.

"This year is very much a recovery year. We are seeing encouraging numbers of very big fish."

Dr Marsh-Smith said the foundation had proposed the catch ban in 1996.

"If we had done this 10 years ago, we might be looking at removing the restriction now."

However, he welcomed the by-law as a way of being fairer to the 80% of anglers who already safely return their catch to the river.

"If you get a situation where 80% comply and 20% don't, then it's very unfair on those who do comply."

He estimated that the angling industry on the Wye generates about £5m a year, half of what he said it should be.

Natural beauty

The Wye, the fifth-longest river in the UK, was voted the public's favourite river in England and Wales in 2010.

Running some 153 miles (246km) from its source on the slopes of Plynlimon to the Severn Estuary near Chepstow, Monmouthshire, it winds its way through or past Rhayader, Builth Wells, Hay-on-Wye, Hereford, Ross-on-Wye, Symonds Yat, Monmouth and Tintern.

The river is a site of special scientific interest (SSI)and much of the lower Wye valley is designated an area of outstanding natural beauty.


Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Legally blonde: Beautician who toppled building giants in legal battle celebrates top honours in her law degree - Daily Mail
  • Georgina Blackwell had no formal qualification when she won a High Court battle with Bellway Homes in a bitter access dispute
  • The 26-year-old had given up dream of studying law in order to help at the family-owned beauty salon after her mother broke her wrist
  • But the unlikely success enabled her to go to university to study lawyer

By Daily Mail Reporter

PUBLISHED: 03:36 EST, 29 June 2012 | UPDATED: 03:39 EST, 29 June 2012


Georgina Blackwell is celebrating securing a First Class Honours law degree

Georgina Blackwell is celebrating securing a First Class Honours law degree

She may be a young blonde beautician from Essex but Georgina Blackwell certainly does not live up to any of the usual stereotypes.

Miss Blackwell first hit the headlines when, aged just 23 and with no formal legal qualification, took on one of the country’s biggest homebuilders in the High Court - and won.

And that proved to be a turning point for the 26-year-old who had almost given up on a dream of becoming a lawyer to work in the family-owned salon in picturesque Halstead, Essex, after her mum broke her wrist.

After the stunning success against Bellway in 2009, Miss Blackwell was offered a law scholarship at BPP University in London.

She is now celebrating again after securing a First Class honours in her law degree, the top grade possible.

A delighted Georgina said: ‘Just over two years ago I was working in the salon and I would never have dreamed that I would complete a law degree and get First Class Honours.

‘If someone had told me that, I would not have believed them.

‘It all has happened too quickly, I don’t feel as though I have had time to take it all in. The past couple of years have been a complete whirlwind for me.’

The qualified beautician, who will start training to become a barrister later this year, added: ‘I was waiting for my results to arrive on e-mail and I must have refreshed the inbox a thousand times before they arrived.

‘When I saw that I had got a First, I was running around the garden, screaming my head off.

‘The neighbours must have thought I was completely crazy but I don’t care - I was just so relieved as I was totally focused on getting a First.’

Georgina added: ‘If it had not been for the legal battle against the developers, I am not sure I would have been where I am today, so it was a blessing in disguise.

‘I would have still be in the salon, like I had been for the previous six years, and this might not have ever happened.’

Georgina Blackwell is as comfortable in the beauty salon as she is presenting complex legal cases before a High Court judge

Georgina Blackwell is as comfortable in the beauty salon as she is presenting complex legal cases before a High Court judge

Miss Blackwell, from Colchester, Essex acted as a lawyer for her mum Sandra, in a bitter battle against Bellway Homes after it had filled the garden next to their beauty salon with scaffolding and debris.

The beautician was dubbed ‘Legally Blonde’ after she secured an unlikely victory against the wealthy developers.

She said her dad, Clive, 72, had been a massive inspiration for her.

She said: ‘Dad knew how upset I was when I could not take my original place to study law, so when I phoned him and told him the news, he was so happy for me and was choked up.’

Georgina’s success means she has been lucky enough to secure a scholarship which will pay for the majority of the 16,000 costs of her nine-month course to become a barrister.

Georgina had almost given up on fulfilling her dream of becoming a lawyer after ditching the chance to study law in order to work in the family's beauty salon to help her mother Sandra, right, who had broken her wrist

Georgina had almost given up on fulfilling her dream of becoming a lawyer after ditching the chance to study law in order to work in the family's beauty salon to help her mother Sandra, right, who had broken her wrist

However, the costs of her commute into London from her home in Essex means that she will still be doing a part-time job to help fund the costs.

And she said, time allowing, she will always be happy to help out her mum, Sandra, 55, at her salon, House of Beauty.

Georgina’s legal journey started when her mum bought a Grade II-listed 600-year-old home - a former school and tailor’s shop - to set up her beauty salon.

But soon after moving in, Bellway Homes purchased an empty factory which backed onto the salon’s garden with the intention of building 43 homes.

Her mum had been taken to court in July 2009 after she refused builders access across her garden to demolish two factory walls which formed part of Bellway’s Church View development.

After losing the case Mrs Blackwell was faced with losing her home and business after spending 3,000 on legal advice and was ordered to pay Bellway’scosts of 22,000 as well as a ‘five-figure sum’ in damages for delays to the building work.

Georgina Blackwell took on Belway Construction after they started demolishing their garden walls and building scaffolding over their garden in Halstead, Essex

Georgina Blackwell took on Belway Construction after they started demolishing their garden walls and building scaffolding over their garden in Halstead, Essex

After the original case, builders moved onto the garden and filled it with scaffolding.

Bright-spark Georgina sprang into action, checking deeds and documents to the house and realised the right of access was only to reach one wall of the factory not two.

And despite coming face-to-face with the developer’s top legal team, Georgina wowed the court with her legal arguments and cross examination, going on to win the case.

In the High Court, Mrs Justice Proudman overturned the previous decision and ordered Bellway Homes to pay Mrs Blackwell 75,000 compensation.

Speaking after the original hearing, Georgina said: ‘I’m a blonde beautician from Essex. I think they underestimated me.

Bellway put scaffolding in Mrs Blackwell's garden and began demolition, which was halted after they lost the court case

Bellway put scaffolding in Mrs Blackwell's garden and began demolition, which was halted after they lost the court case

‘They looked intimidating in their wigs and gowns, it was terrifying. I felt absolutely scared stiff by the huge courtroom and speaking in front of a high court judge but I got a surge of adrenalin and thought, ‘they aren’t going to intimidate me’.’

After hearing of the case, Peter Crisp, Dean of BPP Law School wrote to Georgina in November 2009, offering her a scholarship.

She completed BPP’s two-year law degree programme, which started in May 2010 and finished last month.

Georgina will receive her degree at an official graduation ceremony in London in November.

Here's what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

Fantastic story, her mother must be so proud, well done girl

Report abuse

Definitely a new take on david and goliath i wish i had been in the court i bet the atmosphere was electric well done.

Report abuse

Congratuations Georgina, I just love this story. You are amazing and I wish you well you in your legal career. This is just such a lovely story. What utter satisfactiuon to put a stop to this bully boy builders. How wonderful that Peter Crisp wrote to you offering to help in your career, things couldn't be better.

Report abuse

We need less of State Law and a Return to Common Law which is so simple anyone should be able to grasp it. The more laws the more corrupt the state. Tacitus

Report abuse

I do recall this original story. It was very clear from the way that she handled herself that she was going to go on to bigger things and clearly she has. Her mother must be so proud. I suspect that we will be hearing more about this formidable girl in the years to come when she becomes a QC!

Report abuse

Having worked in the law for 20+ years, I'm afraid to say that she will make more money working as a beautician.

Report abuse

How wonderful. Well done.

Report abuse

See! It can be done. Less chavvin' it and more ambition/studying. X-Factor, Britain's Got Talent and the rest can wait.

Report abuse

Terrific to see big bullies brought to their knees. Big corporations think that they are untouchable and I am so happy for this young girl and her family, what an achievement. We need more of you doing this and making us proud again! Well done!

Report abuse

Brilliant, brilliant, congratulations. Score one for the meek against the goliath of corporate greed. How nice to see them routed and congratulations on your degree first too.

Report abuse

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.


Source: www.dailymail.co.uk
Posted by at No comments:

Essex firefighters to walk out in dispute over cuts (From Echo) - echo-news.co.uk

Essex firefighters to walk out in dispute over cuts (From Echo) - echo-news.co.uk

Updated: Essex firefighters walk out in dispute over cuts

8:10am Thursday 28th June 2012 in Local News

ESSEX firefighters are holding the first of five planned strikes in a dispute over cuts.

The Fire Brigades Union said its members plan to take industrial action today and on July 7 and 18, August 18 and October 18.

Today's strike started at 10am and is due to end at 6pm.

The union said the county will have lost one in five frontline firefighters since 2008 if a current round of planned cuts goes ahead.

Alan Chinn-Shaw, chairman of the FBU's Essex branch, said: "This is about cuts to frontline firefighters and changes imposed on firefighters. We've had enough and the cuts are now directly impacting on public and firefighter safety.

"The recent highly provocative removal of key fire engines and vital rescue equipment contradicts the fire authority claim that it is being reasonable. This two-faced approach has gone on for three years and enough is enough."

Essex firefighters voted by 2-1 in favour of strikes following almost three years of action short of a strike over cuts.

In a statement, Essex County Fire and Rescue Service said contingency plans had been put in place.

Chief Fire Officer David Johnson said more than 100 firefighters had signed "resilience contracts" guaranteeing their availability during periods of staff shortage and members of the retained fire service have indicated they will continue to provide cover.

Mr Johnson had hoped the strikes could be avoided but added these hopes were based on an "assumption of reasonableness".

He said: "We have offered the FBU a number of assurances and have agreed to a number of their demands."

He added that contingency plans meant about 30 out of 70 appliances would continue to operate.

"I don't believe the public will notice any difference in our level of service," he said.

Comments(19)

Rayleigh Reader says...
8:22am Thu 28 Jun 12

Anyone Know if the BEDS have been cut? Spoilt meal allowance? Dental Care.....? Strike days will give them more time to engage in their main jobs, building, gardening, roofing. Sack the lot of them and re-employ those who still know a good thing when they see one! Rayleigh Reader

Say It As It Is OK? says...
8:27am Thu 28 Jun 12

Quote: Mr Johnson had hoped the strikes could be avoided but added these hopes were based on an "assumption of reasonableness". Reasonableness....no t a word that goes hand in hand with the FBU. Say It As It Is OK?

HadleighBoy says...
8:37am Thu 28 Jun 12

I do not condone strike action but my understanding is that this is really an issue of personalities the senior staff of Essex Fire Brigade do not listen to the firemen, most of whom accept that there needs to be change. Wha they object to is the way in which this change is instigated instead o f listening to the genuine concerns of Firemen the management rail road changes in. The front line are taking the brunt of the cuts but who is getting a brand new shiny headquarters eh that would be Mr Johnson. You may notice that no other brigade is out. HadleighBoy

Lefty Cyclist Type says...
8:37am Thu 28 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]Rayleigh Reader[/bold] wrote: Anyone Know if the BEDS have been cut? Spoilt meal allowance? Dental Care.....? Strike days will give them more time to engage in their main jobs, building, gardening, roofing. Sack the lot of them and re-employ those who still know a good thing when they see one![/p][/quote]Did you read the article at all? The strike is about cuts to manpower and equipment. Those cuts will put public lives, and firefighter lives, at risk. Will you be happy with a fire service that cannot respond if you need it? Lefty Cyclist Type

fletch12107 says...
10:10am Thu 28 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]Rayleigh Reader[/bold] wrote: Anyone Know if the BEDS have been cut? Spoilt meal allowance? Dental Care.....? Strike days will give them more time to engage in their main jobs, building, gardening, roofing. Sack the lot of them and re-employ those who still know a good thing when they see one![/p][/quote]The beds are available so that Firefighters can still do a 15 hour night shift, so take them away and you will have to employ more firefighters to make up the shortfall. The spoilt meal allowance is to compensate for meals that are uneatable due to emergency calls and do not cover the cost of the ingredients that are paid for out of firefighters own pocket. Dental care is a nominal fee now that dentists have fixed prices and this results in less time off sick due to toothache and gum disease. Everyone has the right to do as many jobs as they please and fireman have to have permission from the Chief Fire Officer to do so. Retained firefighters have a full time job and do firefighting part time but you have missed out on complaining about them. So to finish on your wrongly assumed rant if we go with your suggestion and sack the "lot of them" the cost of retraining and kitting out new firemen would push your council tax up more and the new recruits to the fire service would still have the same terms. fletch12107

Rayleigh Reader says...
10:25am Thu 28 Jun 12

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Rayleigh Reader wrote:
Anyone Know if the BEDS have been cut?
Spoilt meal allowance?
Dental Care.....?

Strike days will give them more time to engage in their main jobs, building, gardening, roofing.

Sack the lot of them and re-employ those who still know a good thing when they see one!
Did you read the article at all?

The strike is about cuts to manpower and equipment. Those cuts will put public lives, and firefighter lives, at risk.

Will you be happy with a fire service that cannot respond if you need it?
I did read the article and understand it!

Essex has the best equipment and highly trained personnel.

Unfortunately times change, the risk's are no longer as great as they used to be.

Fire prevention has had a great impact on this.

When Canvey was changed to a fully retained station it was deemed to be the end of the world!

But stats show the risk factors, and yes there is a Gas and Oil terminal, but do you believe that having 2 full time crews would save the Island?

The Fire Service would not put public lives at risk or firefighters lives, (Health and Safety etc) the service needs to move forward like any other business, we are in 2012 not the 70's a lot has changed.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rayleigh Reader[/bold] wrote: Anyone Know if the BEDS have been cut? Spoilt meal allowance? Dental Care.....? Strike days will give them more time to engage in their main jobs, building, gardening, roofing. Sack the lot of them and re-employ those who still know a good thing when they see one![/p][/quote]Did you read the article at all? The strike is about cuts to manpower and equipment. Those cuts will put public lives, and firefighter lives, at risk. Will you be happy with a fire service that cannot respond if you need it?[/p][/quote]I did read the article and understand it! Essex has the best equipment and highly trained personnel. Unfortunately times change, the risk's are no longer as great as they used to be. Fire prevention has had a great impact on this. When Canvey was changed to a fully retained station it was deemed to be the end of the world! But stats show the risk factors, and yes there is a Gas and Oil terminal, but do you believe that having 2 full time crews would save the Island? The Fire Service would not put public lives at risk or firefighters lives, (Health and Safety etc) the service needs to move forward like any other business, we are in 2012 not the 70's a lot has changed. Rayleigh Reader

Bramble1979 says...
10:25am Thu 28 Jun 12

I knew it wouldn't be long until the fire crews jumped on the strike bandwagon. Never wanting to be left out!

I'm sorry but I don't think these crews striking know how lucky they really are.

Everyone has had to adapt and change to the spending cuts that have effected us all over the past few years, why should they be no different.

The fire service are not talking about compulsory redundancy, just some changes to working practices. Others have had to change with the times, the police, NHS staff and other public services, they have all been effected and have had to accept changes to working practices, pay and conditions.

These Fire Crews are people who get paid a good wage, Most have second jobs,which they are able to fulfil due to the rest time they get at work!

Are they worried these changes will effect their second incomes!

It seems to me they will harp on about potential lack of resources and and changes to working practices and pull on the heart strings of the public by playing the "if the worst were to happen to you" card.

How many times have you driven past a fire station to see no vehicles in there?

Perhaps it is the case that the fire service needs to modernise, change its ways, become more efficient and cost effective.

What they should be doing is getting on with the job they are paid to do and stop moaning about it. If they don't like it go and do something else, I'm sure there are plenty who would gladly step into their shoes.

This is wearing pretty thin now. These guys are really risking a backlash in public support!!
I knew it wouldn't be long until the fire crews jumped on the strike bandwagon. Never wanting to be left out! I'm sorry but I don't think these crews striking know how lucky they really are. Everyone has had to adapt and change to the spending cuts that have effected us all over the past few years, why should they be no different. The fire service are not talking about compulsory redundancy, just some changes to working practices. Others have had to change with the times, the police, NHS staff and other public services, they have all been effected and have had to accept changes to working practices, pay and conditions. These Fire Crews are people who get paid a good wage, Most have second jobs,which they are able to fulfil due to the rest time they get at work! Are they worried these changes will effect their second incomes! It seems to me they will harp on about potential lack of resources and and changes to working practices and pull on the heart strings of the public by playing the "if the worst were to happen to you" card. How many times have you driven past a fire station to see no vehicles in there? Perhaps it is the case that the fire service needs to modernise, change its ways, become more efficient and cost effective. What they should be doing is getting on with the job they are paid to do and stop moaning about it. If they don't like it go and do something else, I'm sure there are plenty who would gladly step into their shoes. This is wearing pretty thin now. These guys are really risking a backlash in public support!! Bramble1979

HadleighBoy says...
10:33am Thu 28 Jun 12

Bramble1979 wrote:
I knew it wouldn't be long until the fire crews jumped on the strike bandwagon. Never wanting to be left out! I'm sorry but I don't think these crews striking know how lucky they really are. Everyone has had to adapt and change to the spending cuts that have effected us all over the past few years, why should they be no different. The fire service are not talking about compulsory redundancy, just some changes to working practices. Others have had to change with the times, the police, NHS staff and other public services, they have all been effected and have had to accept changes to working practices, pay and conditions. These Fire Crews are people who get paid a good wage, Most have second jobs,which they are able to fulfil due to the rest time they get at work! Are they worried these changes will effect their second incomes! It seems to me they will harp on about potential lack of resources and and changes to working practices and pull on the heart strings of the public by playing the "if the worst were to happen to you" card. How many times have you driven past a fire station to see no vehicles in there? Perhaps it is the case that the fire service needs to modernise, change its ways, become more efficient and cost effective. What they should be doing is getting on with the job they are paid to do and stop moaning about it. If they don't like it go and do something else, I'm sure there are plenty who would gladly step into their shoes. This is wearing pretty thin now. These guys are really risking a backlash in public support!!
Knowing a few firefighters they do want to just get on with their jobs. They are also aware that changes have to be made. However they have a process to which the Chief Fire Officer for Essex agreed to and it is not followed.
They have no say on how to sort the problems out this is done by faceless back office staff soon to be housed in their new shiny office who couldn't put the cat out let alone put a fire out, the guys on the front line who know what they are talking about are ignred.

The relationship between the Chief Fire Officer and his employees is at rock bottom they have nowhere to turn as they are sacked if they speak out and criticise the service (only in Essex mind) and are ignored.

Some of these strikes are for just an hour but they will receive no pay for the whole shift.

Questions need to be asked by Essex County Council as to why this situation has arisen and what the management are going to do to resolve the issues raised, but obviously this will not happen.
[quote][p][bold]Bramble1979[/bold] wrote: I knew it wouldn't be long until the fire crews jumped on the strike bandwagon. Never wanting to be left out! I'm sorry but I don't think these crews striking know how lucky they really are. Everyone has had to adapt and change to the spending cuts that have effected us all over the past few years, why should they be no different. The fire service are not talking about compulsory redundancy, just some changes to working practices. Others have had to change with the times, the police, NHS staff and other public services, they have all been effected and have had to accept changes to working practices, pay and conditions. These Fire Crews are people who get paid a good wage, Most have second jobs,which they are able to fulfil due to the rest time they get at work! Are they worried these changes will effect their second incomes! It seems to me they will harp on about potential lack of resources and and changes to working practices and pull on the heart strings of the public by playing the "if the worst were to happen to you" card. How many times have you driven past a fire station to see no vehicles in there? Perhaps it is the case that the fire service needs to modernise, change its ways, become more efficient and cost effective. What they should be doing is getting on with the job they are paid to do and stop moaning about it. If they don't like it go and do something else, I'm sure there are plenty who would gladly step into their shoes. This is wearing pretty thin now. These guys are really risking a backlash in public support!![/p][/quote]Knowing a few firefighters they do want to just get on with their jobs. They are also aware that changes have to be made. However they have a process to which the Chief Fire Officer for Essex agreed to and it is not followed. They have no say on how to sort the problems out this is done by faceless back office staff soon to be housed in their new shiny office who couldn't put the cat out let alone put a fire out, the guys on the front line who know what they are talking about are ignred. The relationship between the Chief Fire Officer and his employees is at rock bottom they have nowhere to turn as they are sacked if they speak out and criticise the service (only in Essex mind) and are ignored. Some of these strikes are for just an hour but they will receive no pay for the whole shift. Questions need to be asked by Essex County Council as to why this situation has arisen and what the management are going to do to resolve the issues raised, but obviously this will not happen. HadleighBoy

ethel the frog says...
10:47am Thu 28 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rayleigh Reader[/bold] wrote: Anyone Know if the BEDS have been cut? Spoilt meal allowance? Dental Care.....? Strike days will give them more time to engage in their main jobs, building, gardening, roofing. Sack the lot of them and re-employ those who still know a good thing when they see one![/p][/quote]Did you read the article at all? The strike is about cuts to manpower and equipment. Those cuts will put public lives, and firefighter lives, at risk. Will you be happy with a fire service that cannot respond if you need it?[/p][/quote]Have'nt you ever noticed that its never for them but always to 'protect the public' - how thoughtful - lets see what you would think if the Police tried the same excuse! ethel the frog

Lefty Cyclist Type says...
11:09am Thu 28 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]ethel the frog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rayleigh Reader[/bold] wrote: Anyone Know if the BEDS have been cut? Spoilt meal allowance? Dental Care.....? Strike days will give them more time to engage in their main jobs, building, gardening, roofing. Sack the lot of them and re-employ those who still know a good thing when they see one![/p][/quote]Did you read the article at all? The strike is about cuts to manpower and equipment. Those cuts will put public lives, and firefighter lives, at risk. Will you be happy with a fire service that cannot respond if you need it?[/p][/quote]Have'nt you ever noticed that its never for them but always to 'protect the public' - how thoughtful - lets see what you would think if the Police tried the same excuse![/p][/quote]Like this you mean? http://www.guardian. co.uk/uk/2012/may/10 /police-officers-mar ch-cuts "Phil Abbiss, from the West Yorkshire federation, said the demonstration was the voice of officers protesting against the 20% cuts being imposed on the service by the home secretary. "It is simple, we cannot protect the public whilst sustaining losses in police numbers of this magnitude," " Lefty Cyclist Type

APR says...
11:39am Thu 28 Jun 12

There's a load of then standing outside the Thundersley Fire Station today. APR

Reginald47 says...
12:24pm Thu 28 Jun 12

Sorry, both the firefighters and police MIGHT have good reasons to take action on the grounds of 'public safety' but are people likely to lose their jobs the best people to claim they shouldn't lose their jobs? They are striking for themselves and that ruins their possibly good case. Reginald47

HadleighBoy says...
12:28pm Thu 28 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: Sorry, both the firefighters and police MIGHT have good reasons to take action on the grounds of 'public safety' but are people likely to lose their jobs the best people to claim they shouldn't lose their jobs? They are striking for themselves and that ruins their possibly good case.[/p][/quote]Sorry they know they are going to lose jobs they are trying to ensure that the procedures put in place after they have gone work. Currently they are not being consulted, worse they are being ignored and there discussion do not centre around sorry you cannot get rid of us as it affects publice safety as I have said their concerns are on making sure it works after they have gone. HadleighBoy

Lefty Cyclist Type says...
12:43pm Thu 28 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: Sorry, both the firefighters and police MIGHT have good reasons to take action on the grounds of 'public safety' but are people likely to lose their jobs the best people to claim they shouldn't lose their jobs? They are striking for themselves and that ruins their possibly good case.[/p][/quote]I think the people who put their lives on the line for the public are best placed to point out that these cuts will seriously affect their ability to save lives. Lefty Cyclist Type

CALL ME CLINT says...
1:41pm Thu 28 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]Reginald47[/bold] wrote: Sorry, both the firefighters and police MIGHT have good reasons to take action on the grounds of 'public safety' but are people likely to lose their jobs the best people to claim they shouldn't lose their jobs? They are striking for themselves and that ruins their possibly good case.[/p][/quote]Call me naive if you wish but doesn't every person thinking of taking industrial action really have their own interests at heart one way or another? It's only human nature, surely? Those providing a public service are often in a no-win situation as their denial of service is hardly likely to enamor them to the general public, however justified it may be. I would submit that it is for this reason that their leaders tend to play the 'public safety' card. CALL ME CLINT

GentleGiant says...
8:08pm Thu 28 Jun 12

Well done to the 100 staff who actually care about their community. GentleGiant

Lefty Cyclist Type says...
9:49pm Thu 28 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]GentleGiant[/bold] wrote: Well done to the 100 staff who actually care about their community.[/p][/quote]You don't think the staff who are so concerned that the lack of manpower and equipment will affect their ability to help their communities deserve congratulating for taking this action and highlighting the dangers to the public? Lefty Cyclist Type

ethel the frog says...
10:41pm Thu 28 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GentleGiant[/bold] wrote: Well done to the 100 staff who actually care about their community.[/p][/quote]You don't think the staff who are so concerned that the lack of manpower and equipment will affect their ability to help their communities deserve congratulating for taking this action and highlighting the dangers to the public?[/p][/quote]You really sound gullible - 1000's of other people in this country are losing their jobs but can't use the emotional blackmail that firemen use every time they disagree with anything. This seems to happen regularly year after year and its always for 'the publics benefit' - watch out next year for the same tired old line to be rolled out and used again. ethel the frog

Lefty Cyclist Type says...
10:47pm Thu 28 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]ethel the frog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GentleGiant[/bold] wrote: Well done to the 100 staff who actually care about their community.[/p][/quote]You don't think the staff who are so concerned that the lack of manpower and equipment will affect their ability to help their communities deserve congratulating for taking this action and highlighting the dangers to the public?[/p][/quote]You really sound gullible - 1000's of other people in this country are losing their jobs but can't use the emotional blackmail that firemen use every time they disagree with anything. This seems to happen regularly year after year and its always for 'the publics benefit' - watch out next year for the same tired old line to be rolled out and used again.[/p][/quote]And you will be the first person damning them when people start dying because there isn't enough fire cover for the county. Lefty Cyclist Type

Source: www.echo-news.co.uk

Essex fire strikes: The dispute comes to a head - ITV
Essex firefighters strike by Victoria Lampard
Firefighters striking in Basildon
Firefighters striking in Basildon Photo: ITV Anglia

It is a dispute that has been ongoing for three years and centres around changes to the fire service in Essex.

The Fire Brigades' Union is concerned about cuts to frontline services, claiming the county will have lost one in five frontline staff since 2008, if the changes go ahead.

The FBU announced last week its members would stage five strikes over changes to their working practices.

The last talks to try to resolve the dispute took place with ACAS on Monday. The FBU says it has struggled to get the right people at the table for talks. It says it needs representatives from both the fire service and the fire authority in the same room at the same time.

"This is about cuts to frontline firefighters and changes imposed on firefighters. We've had enough and the cuts are now directly impacting on public and firefighter safety."

– Alan Chinn-Shaw, Essex FBU Chair

Essex Fire and Rescue service says the FBU has got to wake up to the need for change and that it has already met a number of union demands.

"There are only a few points still in dispute - points the Service cannot move on, including no changes to anything without prior union agreement. Another sticking point is moving 'corporate' level from the Chief Fire Officer to the Fire Authority in relation to discipline."

– Chief Fire Officer David Johnson, Essex Fire and Rescue Service

The FBU is also calling for a reversal of the decision to change Brentwood Fire Station crewing arrangements from two wholetime appliances to one wholetime and one retained.

"The Fire Authority have invested heavily in front line services and will continue to do so. We have assured the public and our staff that there will be no fire station closures, no enforced firefighter redundancies and continued investment to modernise the Service."

– Councillor Anthony Hedley, Essex Fire Authority Chairman,

As it is such a long-running dispute, plans are in place to cover any firefighters taking part in industrial action. More than 100 Essex firefighters have signed up to resilience contracts guaranteeing their availability during times of severe staff shortages. The fire service says there are also dozens of retained crews.

More on this story


Source: www.itv.com

Timeline: Chronology of Obama healthcare law legal battle - Reuters UK

Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:48pm BST

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare overhaul, handing him a huge election-year victory by preserving his signature domestic policy achievement.

Here is a chronology of the key events in the legal battle over the law that sought to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans.

* March 23, 2010: Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which Congress approved after a long, bruising political fight. The law, which amounted to some 2,700 pages, imposed new obligations on individuals, insurers, employers and states in restructuring the nation's $2.6 trillion healthcare system. The law, which sought to obtain near-universal coverage and slow down soaring healthcare costs, became Obama's signature domestic policy accomplishment. It was fiercely opposed by most Republicans. At the White House signing ceremony, Obama said the law embodied "the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care."

* March 23, 2010: Immediately after Obama signed the law, a group of 13 states led by Florida sued to challenge the law's constitutionality, one of a number of lawsuits brought by various parties around the country. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Florida, was later joined by 13 more states, for a total of 26 of the 50 U.S. states, and by the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses across the country. The states argued the requirement that people obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty - a provision known as the individual mandate - exceeded the powers of Congress under the U.S. Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. The states argued the mandate could not be severed or separated from the rest of the law and they also objected to other provisions, saying Congress improperly coerced the states to expand the Medicaid healthcare program for the poor. The state of Virginia filed its own lawsuit on behalf of its citizens.

* January 31, 2011: U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Florida ruled for the states and struck down the law as unconstitutional. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," he said in his opinion, dealing the Obama administration a major setback. "Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution," wrote Vinson, appointed to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan. The Obama administration vowed to appeal to a U.S. appeals court and said it believed the law ultimately would be upheld.

* August 12, 2011: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled by a 2-1 vote that it was unconstitutional to require Americans to buy insurance, siding with the 26 states that challenged the law. It rejected the administration's arguments that Congress could adopt the individual mandate under its powers under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce or to tax. "This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy and make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," the majority said in the opinion. The appeals court refused to strike down the rest of the law and it rejected the challenge by the states to the Medicaid provision.

* September 28, 2011: The Obama administration, the 26 states and the group representing small independent businesses filed separate appeals with the U.S. Supreme Court. Government attorneys urged the high court to uphold the mandate as constitutional. They argued that Congress had adopted the law to address a crisis in the nation's healthcare market, with millions of uninsured people shifting billions of dollars in costs to others. The states and the National Federation of Independent Business in their appeals argued that the mandate was unconstitutional and that the entire law must fall. The states also argued that Congress acted unconstitutionally by forcing them to expand their Medicaid programs or risk losing federal funding.

* November 14, 2011: The Supreme Court announced it would hear the appeals, setting up an expected ruling by the end of June 2012. That would be in the heat of the campaign for the U.S. presidency, which culminates on November 6, 2012. The court could leave in place the entire law, it could strike down the individual insurance mandate or other provisions, it could invalidate the entire law or it could put off a ruling on the mandate until after it takes effect in 2014. A ruling striking down the law would be a huge political and legal defeat for Obama before an election when he will be seeking a second four-year term. A ruling upholding the law would be vindication, but might make healthcare an even bigger political issue for the Republican presidential candidates, all of whom oppose it and want to repeal it.

* March 26-28, 2012: The Supreme Court heard six hours of oral arguments over three days on the fate of the healthcare law. The court appeared sharply divided along ideological lines, with the five Republican-appointed conservatives doubting the law would survive and the four Democratic-appointed liberals offering a strong defence for the statute.

* June 28, 2012: The Supreme Court upheld the law against the legal challenges to the individual mandate and the requirement that states dramatically expand Medicaid in order to extend coverage to many previously uninsured people. By a 5-4 vote, the justices decided that the individual mandate "may reasonably be characterized as a tax" and that "the Constitution permits such a tax." The court found that Congress exceeded its constitutional power by enacting the provision of the law that requires states to expand Medicaid. But the ruling said this problem is fully remedied by precluding the government from using that provision to withdraw existing Medicaid funds from states for failing to comply with terms of the expansion.

The Supreme Court cases were National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 11-400.

(Compiled by Jim Vicini; Editing by Will Dunham)


Source: uk.reuters.com

Essex firefighters strike over cuts - Socialist Worker

Issue: 2309 dated: 30 June 2012 News online only
posted: 5.09pm Thu 28 Jun 2012 | updated: 5.15pm Thu 28 Jun 2012

comment on article | email | print
Share:

| | |
Firefighters outside Brentwood station applaud as Blue Watch walks out the start of their strike<span class='black'> (Pic: Socialist Worker)</span>

Firefighters outside Brentwood station applaud as Blue Watch walks out the start of their strike (Pic: Socialist Worker)


by Anindya Bhattacharyya

Firefighters across Essex walked out on strike at 10am this morning in protest against cuts to frontline service across the county.

The eight hour action was the first of five strikes announced by the FBU union in their long-running dispute with Essex fire authority.

FBU general secretary Matt Wrack joined strikers outside Brentwood fire station this morning. The station is threatened with losing one of its full-time fire engines.

“Were fighting cuts to fire services all over the countryand for us, Essex is the front line,” he told Socialist Worker. The FBU is calling a demonstration against fire service cuts in Essex on 18 July, he added.

Essex fire authority is cutting frontline services despite a lack of budget cuts over all. Some 100 full-time and 60 part-time posts have been axed in the county since 2008.

Service

Nick Mayes is Essex FBUs assistant secretary and has worked as a firefighter at Brentwood for over 25 years. “The management think they can provide the same level of service with fewer firefighters,” he told Socialist Worker.

“Were saying thats an impossibility. You can have as many fire engines as you wantwithout firefighters to crew them theyre just sitting pretty.”

This situation isnt confined to Essex, said Matt Wrack. “There are a few fire authorities that are building their reserves and still making cuts. Essex is not the only one.”

The fire authority should be scrutinising the plans put forward by senior managers rather than simply rubberstamping them, Nick Mayes added.

Job cuts for frontline firefighters coincide with what one striker described as a “corporate expansion” by the fire authorityplush new headquarters, bloated IT budgets, flash cars for senior officers. “You get a similar thing in all public services,” Nick noted.

The management response to the strike has been heavy-handed. Firefighters have been banned from holding union meetings on fire service premises or setting foot on them while on strike. There have also been persistent threats of disciplinary action against strikers from management.

The next strike dates are set for 7 July, 18 July, 18 August and 18 October. The 18 July strike, which coincides with the Essex demo, is scheduled to last for 24 hours.

© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.


Source: www.socialistworker.co.uk

Sussex edge Essex in thriller - Sporting Life

South Group leaders Sussex maintained their unbeaten record in this season's Friends Life t20 with a dramatic four-wicket victory over nearest rivals Essex.

Sky Bet

Twenty20 Cup. Click here to bet.
Luke Wright: Helped his side claim victory

Faced with a daunting run-chase after James Foster's 65 not out led the Eagles to 177 for four, Sussex got home in a thrilling finish with just one delivery to spare.

When Ryan ten Doeschate began the final over, they still required 10 for victory, but Will Beer rose to the occasion by scoring nine from the first four balls, after which Ben Brown found a boundary to seal the win.

The foundations for their success had been laid by openers Chris Nash and Luke Wright, who raised the 50 in the sixth over and took the total to 77 before the former, on 31, hit Reece Topley to James Franklin at long-on.

Wright, with the help of three sixes and four fours, went on to make 46 from just 26 deliveries before Greg Smith held on at the boundary following another big hit.

Matt Prior kept the momentum going with a 19-ball 35 that included two sixes among his five boundaries.

Sussex required just 36 from the final five overs and, despite losing a couple of cheap wickets, managed to hold their nerve to get home.

Essex were indebted to an outstanding captain's innings from Foster, who struck five fours and four sixes during his 31-ball stay.

The wicketkeeper-batsman's dominance was best underlined by the fact big-hitting Adam Wheater contributed only five to their 65-run stand.

Foster's fireworks

arrived after Graham Napier and ten Doeschate had threatened to tear the Sussex attack apart;

both hit three fours and two sixes before falling without delivering substantial innings.

Napier was first to go, caught by wicketkeeper Brown, who atoned for dropping a chance off the same batsman two overs earlier, for 32.

Ten Doeschate was caught low down on the midwicket boundary for 39 and the Eagles were left rueing his and Napier's failure to capitalise on fine starts.


Source: www.sportinglife.com

Court's health law ruling could limit Congress' powers - USA Today

That was the upshot of the Supreme Court's complex decision on Thursday, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, upholding the core of President Obama's landmark health care overhaul, while simultaneously embracing potentially significant new limits on the sweep of the federal government's authority to regulate commerce and spend money.

In a splintered decision, Roberts and the court's four more liberal justices held that the insurance mandate was nothing more than a tax on people who did not have health coverage, and that the Constitution gives Congress the ability to impose those types of taxes.

But Roberts also joined the court's conservatives and Justice Anthony Kennedy in finding that Congress' separate power to regulate commerce did not give lawmakers the authority to force people to buy insurance if they don't want to. And he joined six other justices in saying that Congress could not use its checkbook to coerce state officials into going along with policies they don't like, the first time in more than a generation that the court had put any real limits on the federal government's power to spend money.

Those findings mean nothing for the future of the health care law, because its status as a tax made it constitutional. But lawyers on both sides of the case said they could change the contours of the federal government's authority for years to come.

Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar said Roberts' approach was "brilliant." Because Roberts voted with the court's liberals to uphold the mandate, it's hard to cast him as a partisan. But "he did so even as he moved the case law to the right by narrowing the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause power and accepting the conservative principles."

The insurance mandate challenge was one of the broadest tests of the federal government's authority ever to reach the Supreme Court. It raised questions of how far Congress could go under its constitutional powers to regulate commerce, spend money and impose taxes — the provisions that underpin many, if not most, federal laws.

And while lawyers who challenged the law said they were disappointed that they had not persuaded Roberts — and, by extension, the court — to find that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, many said they were encouraged by its reasoning. As recently as two years ago, many constitutional scholars had dismissed the constitutional objections to the health law as baseless; on Thursday, most of those objections commanded a majority of the justices.

"All of us, of course, are disappointed with the ultimate outcome today, but we cannot lose sight of what we've accomplished," said Pam Bondi, the attorney general in Florida, one of the 26 states that had challenged the health law. "We learned that there are enforceable limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. We've always said that is very important."

Similarly, Paul Clement, the former Bush administration lawyer who argued most of the challenge before the justices, said Thursday that "it would be hard to think of a case where more of the arguments we made were accepted by the court" even though he lost. He said the court's 7-2 decision to limit the penalties states could face for opting out of a Medicaid expansion was "really quite significant."

Still, not all of the challengers shared that view.

"You can look for silver linings in the cloud, but it's still a cloud," said George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, who wrote a brief opposing the health law. He said that Thursday's decision offers Congress a road map to enact similar laws in the future by crafting them as taxes instead of mandates.


Source: www.usatoday.com

Pregnant woman, 20, and her unborn baby dies after being left in the street following brutal attack - Daily Mail
  • Victim Eystna Blunnie, from Harlow in Essex, was discovered next to a busy road with severe head injuries
  • Her unborn child also died after the vicious attack
  • Distraught parents Kevin and Susan Blunnie pay tribute to their 'wonderful and loving daughter'
  • Police arrested a 23-year-old man and are treating the college student's murder as 'domestic related'

By Tom Gardner

PUBLISHED: 08:53 EST, 28 June 2012 | UPDATED: 12:23 EST, 28 June 2012


A heavily pregnant woman and her unborn baby have been brutally killed following a savage street attack.

Victim Eystna Blunnie, 20, from Harlow, Essex, was just days from giving birth, when she was discovered near to a busy main road in the town suffering from severe head injuries.

The college student was rushed to the town’s Princess Alexandra Hospital, but was later pronounced dead.

Brutal: The body of pregnant Eystna Blunnie, pictured, was found dying on the side of a road in Harlow

Essex Police arrested a 23-year-old man, yesterday afternoon, and were questioning him in connection with the murder and the death of the unborn child.

In a statement, her devastated parents Kevin and Susan Blunnie, said: ‘We hope that you will understand that we have suffered a tragic loss to our family.

Tragic: Estyna Blunnie, who has spoken of her excitement about becoming a mum, posted an ultrasound scan of her unborn child

Tragic: Estyna Blunnie, who has spoken of her excitement about becoming a mum, posted an ultrasound scan of her unborn child

‘Our daughter and granddaughter have been taken from us in such a tragic and horrific way.

'We can't begin to explain how we feel.

‘Eystna was a wonderful and loving daughter who was looking forward to the birth of her first child.

‘Sadly this will no longer be. We hope that everyone will understand the sadness in our hearts and let us mourn our sadness of the passing of our loved ones.

‘We would also like to thank everyone for their support to our family at this very sad time.’

Today friends told how the young mum-to-be was excited about the birth of her first child, due later this week, before she was discovered with fatal injuries near to Howard Way in Harlow, Essex.

Detectives initially said the death was being treated as unexplained but following the results of a post mortem, it is now being treated as murder.

The horrific nature of the attack at around 3am on Wednesday morning has shocked and upset residents in the area who have laid floral tributes at a bench near to where her body was found.

One of her best friends Chloe Hickman, 20, said: ‘It’s a terrible and wicked thing to happen to such a lovely, bubbly girl.

Suspicion: Police guard the house of a man who has been arrested in connection with Eystna's murder

Suspicion: Police guard the house of a man who has been arrested in connection with Eystna's murder

‘Eystna was such a popular and positive person and was due to be induced at the weekend.

‘She was really looking forward to becoming a mum.’

The young mum-to-be had studied catering at nearby Harlow College and had been excited about life as a full-time mother.

One of Eystna’s close friends Charlotte Bird wrote on Facebook: ‘Hates that I’m gonna go bed tonight and not sleep a wink but all I will be thinking bout are my 2 Beautiful darling Angels tonight who are at peace and now out of trouble sleep tight princesses.’

When Eystna was five months pregnant she told friends online she was hoping to give birth to a boy, but the brave expectant mother was preparing for life as a single mother.

As she excitedly counted down the days she spoke of the father of her baby, who is believed to be the suspect, not wanting the child and having a new partner.

Describing herself on her profile page Eystna said: ‘I’m 20yrs old 21yrs old this year and going to be a mummy soon can’t wait.

‘So if you have any problems with me or my ex then im not interested as im an adult unlike some of you.’

Her current profile picture features a recent ultrasound scan.

She told friends she 'could not wait' to be a mother and added: 'Only 17 days and counting.'

Distraught: People lay flowers on the side of a main road Howard Way, Harlow near to where Estyna Blunnie and her unborn baby were brutally beaten to death

Distraught: People lay flowers on the side of a main road Howard Way, Harlow near to where Estyna Blunnie and her unborn baby were brutally beaten to death

Grief: Two friends console each other beside tributes to college student Estyna Blunnie who was found fatally wounded in the street having been savagely beaten

Grief: Two friends console each other beside tributes to college student Estyna Blunnie who was found fatally wounded in the street having been savagely beaten

Detectives from the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate are investigating the case and have appealed for more information.

An Essex Police spokesman said: ‘A murder investigation was launched following the conclusion of a post mortem examination on Wednesday.

‘Police were contacted just before 3am with reports of a woman found with injuries in Howard Way.

‘The woman, aged in her 20s, was taken by ambulance to Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow where she was sadly later pronounced dead.

‘Police are investigating the circumstances leading up to the woman’s death and ask anyone with information to contact officers from the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate at Harlow on 101.’ 

Tragic: Friends of Estyna Blunnie, who was found dying on the side of a road in Harlow, lay floral tributes to the pregnant college student and her unborn child

Tragic: Friends of Estyna Blunnie, who was found dying on the side of a road in Harlow, lay floral tributes to the pregnant college student and her unborn child

Shocking: Flowers have been laid in tribute to a heavily pregnant woman, named locally as Estyna Blunnie, and her baby, near the scene where she was found brutally murdered in Harlow, Essex

Shocking: Flowers have been laid in tribute to a heavily pregnant woman, named locally as Estyna Blunnie, and her baby, near the scene where she was found brutally murdered in Harlow, Essex


Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons.


Source: www.dailymail.co.uk

We make up the law as we go along, admits Britain's new Euro-judge - Daily Telegraph Blogs

A court with a mission is a menace, a supreme court with a mission is a tyranny

Think of some of the more bizarre interpretations that have come out of the European Court of Human Rights. How does the ‘right to a family life’ allow illegal immigrants to defy deportation orders? How did ‘freedom of expression’ come to encompass pornography in prison cells? How does the prohibition of torture mean that a state can’t repatriate dangerous militants to places where they won’t be tortured, but someone else might have been?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of such rulings, they are plainly political rather than legal. You can make a case that, for example, felons should not lose the right to vote. But if that is your view, you should stand for election and seek to alter the legislation. The objection to the ECHR is not that all its judgments are idiotic – though some of them are – but that it is behaving as a legislative rather than a judicial body, ruling on the basis of what it thinks the law ought to say rather than what it says.

One of the reasons it does so is that it isn’t staffed by judges – not, at least, as we understand the term. Like its cousin, the European Court of Justice, it doesn’t require its members to have served on the bench in their home countries. Many of them are academics, politicians and human rights activists who happen to have law degrees. And some are quite blatant about using the institution to advance an agenda that would be rejected at the ballot box.

Consider Britain’s new representative, Paul Mahoney. James Slack describes him as ‘A Eurocrat who has never been a judge in Britain’: for 30 years, he has worked within the Strasbourg system.

Like his predecessor, Sir Nicolas Bratza – though in more measured words – he cheerfully admits that the ECHR makes things up as it goes along: ‘The open textured language and the structure of the Convention leave the Court significant opportunities for choice in interpretation. In exercising that choice, particularly when faced with changed circumstances and attitudes in society, the Court makes new law.’

Changed attitudes, eh? As defined by whom? Not, obviously, by the electorate as a whole, or the law would have been altered. But you, the ECHR, somehow have a direct connection with ‘attitudes in society’ that elected representatives have not? And you’re absolutely certain that these attitudes represent society as a whole, not just the opinions you get from Guardian leader-writers and Matrix Chambers activists?

The odd thing is that the autocracies which were defeated in 1945, and whose re-emergence the ECHR was supposed to prevent, likewise justified themselves by arguing that they had a better sense of the people’s welfare than a parliamentary system would produce. The whole purpose of representative government is to ensure that our rulers don’t get to decide, on their own, what’s good for us. It’s hard to improve on C.S. Lewis:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

 


Source: blogs.telegraph.co.uk

Little Mix star’s brother spared jail after judge heard he dealt cocaine to pay off drug dealers threatening to kidnap the X Factor star - Daily Mail

By Damien Gayle

PUBLISHED: 14:05 EST, 28 June 2012 | UPDATED: 15:06 EST, 28 June 2012


Spared jail: Jonathan Nelson, brother of Little Mix star Jesy Nelson, arriving at Southend Crown Court today

Spared jail: Jonathan Nelson, brother of Little Mix star Jesy Nelson, arriving at Southend Crown Court today

Little Mix starlet Jesy Nelson was today named at the centre of a kidnap plot as her brother was spared jail for peddling cocaine for dealers who had threatened her.

Jesy's older brother Jonathan Nelson was in December caught red-handed selling the Class A drug to an undercover reporter for a national newspaper at a carpark in Hornchurch, Essex.

As he appeared at Southend Crown Court for sentencing today he sensationally claimed he had only agreed to sell cocaine after threats were made to his sister.

The court heard the 23-year-old was feeding a 100-a-day cocaine habit which had left him 3,000 in debt to an underworld character he knew only as 'Mr Turner'.

Nelson, whose mother Janis, 51, is a Police Community Support Officer in Canvey Island, Essex, had pleaded guilty to a single charge of supplying cocaine at an earlier hearing.

But James Lachkovic, defending Nelson, said he was 'simply a delivery boy'.

Dressed in a smart light grey suit, with white shirt and open collar, Nelson today was asked to take to the stand to give evidence in his mitigation.

After swearing on the bible, Nelson, who has dark brown slicked back hair, said that as a result of his cocaine habit he had found himself owing 500 to Mr Turner who, angered by a delay in repayment, had summarily increased the debt to 3,000.

Nelson told the court that he was warned in a sinister phoned call from Mr Turner in December that his sister would be kidnapped unless he came up with the cash.

He said: 'I asked him for more time. He was angry. He was making threats and he threatened to kidnap my sister because she had just become famous.

'I said if there is anything I can do to pay the money I would do it.'

Nelson added: 'He called me again and said "you will have to do me a few favours".'

It was not the first intimidation Nelson had suffered. Earlier that month he had been at his girlfriend's house when three men burst in and attacked him with a baseball bat.

He said: 'They pushed their way in, saying ‘you owe Mr Turner money’, I was whacked on the back of the head and one of them grabbed and spun me round and the other one hit me with a wooden baseball bat.

'They were shouting abuse at me but I told them I did not have it.

'They said: "you have to pay the money you owe him, if we have not got it, we will be back within a week for the money".'

That attack left Nelson with a broken arm which had to be patched up with surgery to install two metal plates.

Threats: Nelson told the court that he owed money to drugs dealers who had made threats to kidnap his sister Jesy, who was then appearing on X Factor

Nelson, who would often buy five grammes of the drug for his own use, claimed it was as a result of those threats to his family and himself that he had started dealing.

He admitted selling two wraps of cocaine for 80 to an undercover reporter from his Smart car on December 14 last year.

Nelson’s family were in the courtroom to hear evidence of his drug addiction although sister Jesy stayed away.

Matt Morgan, prosecuting, said Nelson had been captured on hidden camera selling two wraps of cocaine for 80 from his car.

'A black Smart car pulled up and out of the came the defendant Mr Nelson,' said Mr Morgan. 'He was recognised by the reporter as someone he has seen previously.

'[The reporter] approached the window of the Smart car. A conversation ensued in which he was presented with two wraps of paper, each about two inches by half an inch in size.

'The price was agreed as 80 and he handed it over. The incident was photographed.

'The reporter took the drug to be forensically examined and they were found to contain 0.7g in one wrap and 0.61g in the other of a white powder which was found to contain cocaine.'

No evidence was heard by the court about the purity of the cocaine which Nelson had dealt.

Southend Crown Court: Judge Jonathan Black heard how Nelson only agreed to deal cocaine after he was attacked and his sister threatened by dealers he owed money to

Southend Crown Court: Judge Jonathan Black heard Nelson only dealt cocaine after he was attacked and his sister threatened by dealers he owed money to

Mr Lachkovic, mitigating, told the court that Nelson was 'simply a delivery boy and one cannot envisage a lesser role than that.' The court heard that Nelson was no longer using drugs.

Judge Jonathan Black, sentencing, branded Nelson 'stupid' for agreeing to become involved with the drug dealing.

'This will no doubt cause embarrassment to your sister who has taken a strong anti-drugs stance,' Judge Black said.

Although the offence could have led to custody, the judge said the threats received by Nelson, and his previous good character, meant he would not be jailing him.

Nelson, who is unemployed and lives in Hornchurch, was sentenced to a 10-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, and ordered to carry out 200 hours unpaid work in the community.

He was also ordered to pay costs of 600.

Clean cut: X-Factor winners Little Mix - (left-right) Jade Thirlwall, Jesy Nelson, Leigh-Anne Pinnock, and Perrie Edwards - have said they neither drink nor do drugs

Clean cut: X-Factor winners Little Mix - (left-right) Jade Thirlwall, Jesy Nelson, Leigh-Anne Pinnock, and Perrie Edwards - have said they neither drink nor do drugs

As well as the drugs conviction, Nelson was also sentenced to three months prison, suspended, to run concurrently after admitting driving whilst disqualified.

For another charge of driving with no insurance the judge ordered there would be no separate penalty.

The case will come as an embarrassment to Nelson’s sister and her fellow Little Mix bandmates Perrie Edwards, Leigh-Anne Pinnock and Jade Thirlwall.

They have made much of their squeaky clean lifestyles in their bid for pop chart success, with all four saying they never use drugs or drink.

There is absolutely no suggestion that teetotal Jesy, of nearby Romford, Essex, or any of her family were aware of her brother’s drug dealing, or were in any way involved.


Source: www.dailymail.co.uk

Lawmakers react to Supreme Court decision upholding Obama health care law - FOX News

The nation's highest court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of President Obama's sweeping health care law, which was celebrated as victory among Democrats, while blasted by Republicans who vowed a repeal.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio:

"The president's health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire.  Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare."  -- House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.:

"This decision is a victory for the American people. With this ruling, Americans will benefit from critical patient protections, lower costs for the middle class, more coverage for families, and greater accountability for the insurance industry. The Affordable Care Act is already paying dividends for millions of Americans -- with more to come: Children can no longer be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Seniors are paying less for prescription drugs. Students and young adults can stay on their parents' plans. Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing medical condition.

"In passing health reform, we made history for our nation and progress for the American people. We completed the unfinished business of our society and strengthened the character of our country. We ensured health care would be a right for all, not a privilege for the few. Today, the Supreme Court affirmed our progress and protected that right, securing a future of health and economic security for the middle class and for every American."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va:

"The Supreme Court's decision to uphold ObamaCare is a crushing blow to patients throughout the country. ObamaCare has failed to keep the President's basic promise of allowing those who like their health care to keep it, while increasing costs and reducing access to quality care for patients. In this tough economy, jobs and economic growth are on the minds of most Americans, but ObamaCare has increased uncertainty for small businessmen and women and forced them to put their hiring decisions on hold.

"During the week of July 9, the House will once again repeal ObamaCare, clearing the way for patient-centered reforms that lower costs and increase choice. We support an approach that offers simpler, more affordable and more accessible health care that allows people to keep the health care that they like.

"The court's decision brings into focus the choice the American people have about the direction of our country. The president and his party believe in massive government intrusions that increase costs and take decisions away from patients. In contrast, Republicans believe in patient-centered, affordable care where health care decisions are made by patients, their families and their doctors, not by the federal government."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada:

"Mr. President, I'm happy. I'm pleased to see the Supreme Court put the law ahead of partisanship and ruled that the affordable care act is constitutional. Mr President, it's a long opinion and we know that when we come back here after the elections there may be something we need to improve the law and we'll do that working together. But today millions of Americans are already seeing the benefit of that law that we passed, seniors are saving money on their prescriptions and checkups. 

 


Source: www.foxnews.com
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)