text:
Authority Update
This update contains brief details of recent Government publications, legislation, cases and other developments relevant to those involved in local government work, which have been published in the previoustwo weeks.
This update contains brief details of recent Government publications, legislation, cases and other developments relevant to those involved in local government work, which have been published in the previous two weeks. Items are set out by subject, with a link to where the full document can be found on the internet.
If you have been forwarded this update by a colleague and would like to receive it direct please email Claire Booth.
All links are correct at the date of publication. The following topics are covered in this update:
Audit Finance
Burials and Cremation Governance
Children's Services Health and Social Care
Communities Housing
Contract Management Members
Development Control Police
Delivery of Services Ports and Harbours
Devolution Procurement
Economic Development Public Health
Elections Regulatory Services
HC Library: Local audit in England: this briefing paper explains the new procedures for audit of local authorities and related bodies brought in by the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. (24 June 2015)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Olwen Dutton.
Burials and Cremation
MoJ: Bereaved to benefit from action on cremation and coroner services: announces that the Government will carry out a review the out-of-hours services provided by coroners in England and Wales to make sure they are sensitive to the needs of the whole community, including those whose beliefs require burials to take place quickly. In addition, the Chancellor has announced that DCLG is to launch an additional review into existing crematorium facilities, to make sure they are adequate for all community needs in the present day. (8 July 2015)
DfE: The Prevent Duty: departmental advice for schools and childcare providers on their duty under the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 to prevent children and young people from being drawn into terrorism. It complements the statutory guidance on the duty for all public bodies.
There is also a briefing note for schools on How social media is used to encourage travel to Syria and Iraq that advises actions schools and teachers should take to protect pupils. (1 July 2015)
DfE: The Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations – Volume 2: Care planning, placement and case review: updated statutory guidance about local authority support to children and families. It also consolidates a number of separate documents that were previously published, including 'Delegation of authority to foster carers'. (3 July 2015)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Clare Taylor.
Playing Fields (Community Involvement in Disposal Decisions) (Wales) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/1403 (W. 139)): these regulations, which com into force in Wales on 1 October 2015, set out how communities are to be involved in a local authority's disposal of land that consists, or forms part of, a playing field. They impose notification and consultation duties on a local authority where it is considering making a decision to dispose, or to make a decision to enter into an agreement to dispose, of a playing field or any part of a playing field. (22 June 2015)
NAO: Open book accounting and supply-chain assurance: the National Audit Office is calling for Government to negotiate greater access to, and make better use of, information about how much outsourced public services are actually costing suppliers and therefore how much profit they are making. An NAO survey found that such information, known as open-book accounting data, is currently available in only 31% of contracts and that, even then, it is not always received. Based on public and private sector case studies, the report identifies five approaches to collecting and using information on suppliers. It recommends that every major contract has a strategy for the collection and use of information and that every government department has a policy on when it will use open-book accounting. (1 July 2015)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Louise Robling.
Delivery of Services
DCLG: Local government, housebuilding and decentralisation: transcript of the Communities Secretary's speech to the LGA Conference. He calls on all cities, towns and counties to be ambitious in their proposals to take power and resources away from Whitehall. (2 July 2015)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact David Hutton.
Development Control
Planning (Wales) Act 2015: this Act has received Royal Assent. It reforms the planning system in Wales so as to enable development and enhance built and natural environments. It:
introduces a new legal framework for the Welsh Ministers to prepare a national land use plan, to be known as the National Development Framework for Wales;
provides for the production of Strategic Development Plans, to tackle larger-than-local cross-boundary issues, such as housing supply and areas for economic growth and regeneration;
provides for pre-application consultation, and requires local planning authorities to provide pre-application services;
provides for planning applications for nationally-significant projects to be made to the Welsh Ministers; also, planning applicants will be able to apply to the Welsh Ministers for planning permission where a local planning authority is deemed to be poorly performing;
reforms the development management system to streamline procedures, to ensure that applications are dealt with promptly, providing certainty for developers and communities;
improves enforcement and appeal procedures, and makes changes to the recovery of costs for parties involved in planning cases; and
make changes in relation to applications to register town and village greens.
(6 July 2015)
R (Loader) v Rother DC [2015] EWHC 1877 (Admin) (Admin Ct): the court has refused an application for judicial review of the council's grant of planning permission for sheltered accommodation to be built on a site used as a bowling club. The site was registered as an asset of community value and faced a Grade II listed terrace. L contended that the Council had: failed to consult relevant conservation bodies; misunderstood the NPPF; and failed to have regard to the correct designation of the land as an ACV.
The court held that the Council had breached its duty to consult English Heritage; however, the court would exercise its discretion not to quash the decision as it found that the decision would have been the same had English Heritage responded on the application as a result of notification. The other grounds failed. (30 June 2015)
HM Treasury: Further devolution to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and directly-elected Mayor: details of the proposals announced in the Summer Budget on further progress in devolving powers to Greater Manchester. This includes putting Fire Services under the control of the new directly-elected Mayor, establishing a Greater Manchester Land Commission, granting the Mayor more powers over planning, and inviting discussion of how central government and the city region might collaborate further on children's services and employment programmes. (9 July 2015)
Smith Institute: Delivering growth – Where next for Local Enterprise Partnerships?: against the backdrop of political change and economic recovery, this report captures the views of LEP chairs and chief executives on how to deliver on their potential and unlock local growth in 2015 and beyond. Based on 22 interviews with LEP leaders it highlights the main priorities and obstacles facing the LEPs over the next five years, in particular around their capacity and capability to deliver on their ambitions. (30 June 2015)
IPPR North: Do we need a Great North Plan? Call for evidence: IPPR North and the Royal Town Planning Institute are inviting those living or working in the north of England for views on the most appropriate approach to developing a strategic spatial planning framework across the North of England – a Great North Plan. The closing date for submissions is 30 September 2015. There will then be a Northern Summit in Leeds in November.
See also Full steam ahead: Business attitudes towards the northern powerhouse that looks at the emergence of the 'northern powerhouse' concept, and in particular at the response of northern businesses to it. (24 June 2015)
UK Commission for Employment and Skills: City deals and skills – How have City and Local Growth Deals supported the development of employment and skills policies that reflect local demand?: this report examines how City and Local Growth Deals have supported the development of employment and skills policies that reflect local demand. It proposes that leadership is needed at a local level to better link skills provision with employer demand. Skills shortages can then be identified and addressed more effectively, leading to better growth prospects for the whole area. It urges local education and training providers, employers and representative organisations to sign up to "outcome agreements" that identify both the skills needs of a local area and the solutions to address them. Partners are then held accountable for delivery of their parts of the agreement. (29 June 2015)
Centre for Cities: City deals and skills: over the last five years, various aspects of employment and skills policy have formed a significant element of devolution policies. City Deals and Growth Deals in particular have focused on aspects of youth employment programmes, adult skills provision and vocational training in order to respond to the needs of specific areas. This report looks at how employment and skills policy has featured in the deals to date, reflecting on how these have supported local partners to develop more demand-led employment and skills systems. Based on the lessons learnt, it presents some recommendations on how this might be supported further. (2 July 2015)
NAO: Devolving responsibilities to cities in England – Wave 1 City Deals: this report scrutinises the first City Deals that were signed with the eight largest cities outside London in 2012, with government departments committing up to £2.3bn to the deals, spread over 30 years. The NAO concludes that the Wave 1 City Deals were an important catalyst for cities to develop their capacity to manage devolved funding and increased responsibility for economic growth; however, it is too early to tell whether the deals will have any overall impact on growth. It highlights how both the Government and local places can learn from the experience of Wave 1 City Deals to manage devolution to local places effectively. (9 July 2015)
DCLG: Multimillion pound boost for seaside towns: announces that the Coastal Communities Fund is to be extended to 2020/2021, with a further £90m to unlock the economic potential of coastal communities. (9 July 2015)
DBIS: Fixing the foundations – Creating a more prosperous nation: sets out a 15-point plan that the Government will put into action to boost the UK's productivity growth, centred around two key pillars: encouraging long-term investment, and promoting a dynamic economy. It includes proposals for a new zonal system to give automatic permission on suitable brownfield sites, taking tougher action to ensure that local authorities are using making land available for housing, and working with the Mayor of London to bring forward proposals to remove the need for planning permission for upwards extensions for a limited number of storeys up to the height of the adjoining building. The Government will publish a new long-term National Infrastructure Plan for key economic infrastructure sectors – transport, energy, flood defences, water, waste, communications and science – supported by annual progress updates and underpinned by the Infrastructure Pipeline, which will be published on a regular basis, with an update this summer. (10 July 2015)
DfE: Hundreds of 'coasting' schools to be transformed: announces a new measure that will identify those schools which are failing to push every pupil to reach their potential - so called 'coasting' schools. The measure, to be introduced through the Education and Adoption Bill, sets out a clear definition of what a 'coasting' school is. Schools eligible for intervention will be those which fall below a new 'coasting' level for three years. In 2014 and 2015 that level will be set at 60% of pupils achieving 5 good GCSEs or an above-average proportion of pupils making acceptable progress. From 2016, the level will be set based on Progress 8 - the new accountability measure which shows how much progress pupils in a particular school make between the end of primary school and their GCSEs. (30 June 2015)
LGA: Analysis of academy school performance in GCSEs 2014 – Final report: this research reveals that, on average, pupils attending maintained schools achieved the same high standard of GCSE results in 2014 as those attending academies. Current government statistics show that only three out of the 20 largest academy chains are performing above the national average on an 'added value' measure, compared to 44 out of 100 councils. Local government leaders are calling for central government to remove the bureaucratic barriers currently stopping councils from intervening in underperforming schools and allow high performing maintained schools to play a direct part in raising education standards and improve life chances, including taking on the running of failing academies. (1 July 2015)
NAO: Funding for disadvantaged pupils: the DfE pays the Pupil Premium directly to schools as extra funding for each pupil from a socio-economically disadvantaged background between the ages of 5 and 16, with the aim of closing the gap in attainment between them and their peers by improving their academic performance. This report from the NAO finds that introducing the Pupil Premium has increased school leaders' focus on improving outcomes for disadvantaged children, with 94% of school leaders that the NAO surveyed saying they targeted support at disadvantaged pupils, compared with 57% before the creation of the Pupil Premium. (30 June 2015)
Sutton Trust: The pupil premium – Next steps: this research looked at how the pupil premium has enabled schools to do more to improve the results of their less advantaged pupils. The findings suggests that there is still have much to do to ensure that those from poorer families do as well as their classmates. (1 July 2015)
Electoral Commission: The hidden costs of electoral law: this report was prepared to inform the Law Commissions' review of electoral law. it highlights the unnecessary costs that are generated solely by the problems with the law and so which can be addressed in the Law Commissions' on-going review. These costs are imposed when making electoral legislation, administering elections, the legal processes arising from elections and when standing for elections. The majority of the costs are caused by four factors: the complexity of electoral law; its fragmented nature; the level of unnecessary detail in the law and the presence of outdated drafting (some of which is little changed since the nineteenth century). (25 June 2015)
HM Treasury: Summer Budget 2015: the Chancellor has presented his first Budget following the May general Election. Points of interest for local authorities:
£37bn of further spending cuts by 2020, including £12bn of welfare cuts and £5bn from tax avoidance - £17bn of these cuts in today's Budget, the remainder to be announced in the Autumn Spending Review;
introduction of a new national living wage for all workers aged over 25, starting at £7.20 an hour from April 2016 and set to reach £9 by 2020;
1% public sector pay rise to continue for next four years;
rents in social housing sector will be reduced by 1% a year for the next four years;
higher-income households in social housing will be required to pay rents at the market rate;
further progress on devolving powers to Greater Manchester - putting Fire Services under the control of the new directly-elected Mayor, establishing a Greater Manchester Land Commission, granting the city region more powers over planning subject to the agreement of the Cabinet member representing the district in which the power is used, and inviting discussion of how central government and the city region might collaborate further on children's services and employment programmes;
the Government has received two Combined Authority proposals from local authorities in the East Midlands. It remains open to any further proposals from local areas for devolution of significant powers in return for a mayor, in time for conclusion ahead of the Spending Review;
discussions on devolution of services to Sheffield, Liverpool, West Yorkshire and Cornwall;
consultation on devolving powers on Sunday trading to city mayors and local authorities;
£30m for new body Transport for the North to promote integrated transport - including use of Oyster cards - in the north of England.
See also the LGA's On the Day briefing. (8 July 2015)
Centre for Cities: Mapping Britain's public finances – Where is tax raised, and where is it spent?: this paper shows where taxes are raised and public money is spent in local authorities across the country. While most tax and spending takes place at a local level, until now there has been very little understanding of where this occurs in different cities and regions, and how this affects the UK's economy and finances. The report reveals the big implications for the national exchequer of the economic under-performance of some of Britain's biggest city-regions. (6 July 2015)
LGA: A shared commitment – Local government and the Spending Review: this report looks at how a strong partnership with local government would support the Government in tackling the significant challenge of reducing the national deficit over the period of this Parliament, while at the same time ensuring the quality front line services that the public want and need. This partnership can be based on a shared commitment to achieving agreed outcomes in three areas: resources, public service reform and growth. The LGA argues that if this partnership is successful and truly promotes decentralisation, public service reform and increased economic prosperity across all parts of the country, then local government can deliver more than £80bn in economic growth and almost £2bn savings to the public purse. (7 July 2015)
CfPS: The change game – How councils are using good governance as a way to navigate challenging times: this paper looks at how robust governance can help local authorities to deliver major change. It focuses on two topics: transformation and commissioning. It discusses key ways that scrutiny councillors, and the officers who support them, can think about governance more productively, along with ways that members with executive responsibilities, and the officers who support them, should support the scrutiny role to make it effective, and to ensure that there is a positive return on the authority's investment in scrutiny. (30 June 2015)
LGA: Local Healthwatch governance – A self-assessment toolkit for local Healthwatch and local Healthwatch Commissioners: this toolkit is designed to support local Healthwatch (LHW) and local commissioners in establishing successful governance for an effective LHW organisation. It sets out some key governance questions for LHW and local commissioners to think about in development discussions and in renegotiating contracts. (7 July 2015)
LGA: Making it better together – A call to action on the future of health and wellbeing boards: the LGA and NHS Clinical Commissioners have launched an ambitious call to action and a set of proposals to local system leaders and the Government to strengthen the impact and leadership of health and wellbeing boards across the country. The document also outlines the LGA and NHS Clinical Commissioners shared commitment to support boards to reach their full potential as system leaders driving forward changes that will improve the health of their communities. (30 June 2015)
County Councils Network: County care markets – Market sustainability & the Care Act: this report reveals the reality facing county care markets prior to Part 2 of the Care Act 2014 going live. Not only does the report provide evidence that the social care system is already unsustainably reliant on cross-subsidisation by those people that fund their own care, but also that the Act could lead to a significant alteration in the funding model currently keeping many local care markets afloat. The report says that as 'a direct result' of inadequate social care funding there is a growing gap between council fees and the levels required by providers to sustain viable markets for older people's care in many areas. It warns that care homes are at risk from low council fees and there is a likelihood that the Care Act will reduce compensatory high fees from self-funders. (1 July 2015)
London Councils: Better Care Fund in 2016/17 - London Councils' core design principles: London Councils, the cross-party body that represents the 32 London borough councils and the City of London, is urging the Government to take early action to clarify the approach to the BCF in 2016/17 to give boroughs, CCGs and their partners time to develop ambitious plans to take integration a meaningful step forward in that year. It has also set out eight core design principles that it believes should be adopted as a framework for making the BCF in 2016/17 a further significant step forward in health and care integration, while allowing for flexibility to develop ambitious plans to reflect local circumstances and priorities. (1 July 2015)
Law Commission: Mental capacity and deprivation of liberty: the Law Commission is seeking views on how the law should regulate deprivations of liberty involving people who lack capacity to consent to their care and treatment arrangements, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in P v Cheshire West and Chester Council; P v Surrey CC [2014] UKSC 19. It states that the majority in Cheshire West were clear that disabled people have the same rights as anyone else and this must be the starting point. The task is to find the best solution. The consultation closes on 2 November 2015. (7 July 2015)
Welsh Government: Wales replaces the axed UK Independent Living Fund: announces a new £20m fund to support more than 1,600 disabled people in Wales with their care needs, following the closure of the Independent Living Fund by the UK Government. From 1 July 2015, disabled people in Wales with significant care needs will receive direct cash payments from local authorities to help meet the cost of the care and support they need. Funding of £20.4m has been ring-fenced for the scheme for July 2015 to the end of March 2016, which is based on the number of people receiving ILF when the current scheme closed on 30 June. (1 July 2015)
DH: Social care grant determinations for 2015 to 2016: these grant determinations for social care (capital), care and support in prisons and local reform and community voices, set out how much money the DH will pay local authorities for social care grants in 2015/16. They also explain any conditions on how the money is used. (10 July 2015)
LGO: Social care fact sheets: the LGO has published several new fact sheets on social care complaints, updated following the Care Act 2014:
Complaints about councils that arrange and fund residential care placements - pre April 2015
Complaints about councils that arrange and fund residential care placements - post April 2015
Complaints about councils that conduct community care assessments - pre April 2015
Complaints about councils that conduct community care assessments - post April 2015.
R (Cornwall Council) v Secretary of State for Health; R (Cornwall Council) v Somerset CC [2015] UKSC 46 (Sup Ct): the Supreme Court has handed down judgment in this case on determining "ordinary residence". The case concerned liability for PH, a young man who had severe physical and learning disabilities. He lived in Wiltshire with his parents; when he was aged 4, W Council placed him with foster carers in South Gloucestershire. His parents then moved to Cornwall but they remained closely involved in decisions affecting him and had regular contact with him. After PH reached 18, he moved to a care home in Somerset that was funded by W Council. He visited his parents in Cornwall and had no remaining close family ties with Wiltshire. W Council and C Council disagreed over responsibility for PH once he became 18. The SoS found that PH was ordinarily resident in Cornwall. The CA ruled that PH's place of ordinary residence was South Gloucestershire: it could not be Wiltshire, because he ceased to have any connection with it at all. The mere fact that his parents' place of ordinary residence was in Cornwall could not justify finding that to be PH's place of ordinary residence.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and determined PH's ordinary residence at the relevant time to be Wiltshire. Their Lordships stated that PH's placement in South Gloucestershire by Wiltshire was not to be regarded as changing his ordinary residence. The CA's attribution of responsibility to South Gloucestershire might fit the language of the statute, but it ran directly counter to the NAA 1948's policy. The only connection with that county was PH's historic placement under a statute, the Children Act 1989, which specifically excluded the placement from consideration as ordinary residence for the purposes of the 1989 Act. The policy in both the 1989 and 1948 Acts was that ordinary residence of a person provided with accommodation should not be affected, for the purposes of an authority's responsibilities, by the location of that person's placement. The purpose of the deeming provisions in both Acts was that an authority should not be able to export its responsibility for providing accommodation by "exporting" the person who is in need of it. Until PH turned 18, for fiscal and administrative purposes his ordinary residence continued to be in Wiltshire, regardless of where the local authority determined that he should live. Therefore the appeal was allowed and in the declaration of the Court of Appeal references to South Gloucestershire were substituted for references to Wiltshire. (8 July 2015)
PM's Office: PM and Chancellor announce 'one nation' plans to spread home ownership across the country: announces that the Housing Bill, to be introduced this autumn, will include steps to build discounted homes for first time buyers on all reasonable sized developments, unlock public land for hundreds of thousands of new homes and back small builders with planning changes. It also confirms plans to give housing association tenants the chance to buy their own home, with a discount of up to 70%. (4 July 2015)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact David Isaacson.
HMRC: Tax exemption for travel expenses of members of local authorities: this tax information and impact note introduces a new exemption from Income Tax and a disregard for NICs for travel expenses paid to councillors by their local authority. This measure will have effect on payments made on and after 6 April 2016. (9 July 2015)
Committee on Standards in Public Life: Tone from the top – Leadership, ethics and accountability in policing: this is the Committee's final report of its inquiry into policing accountability. It calls for greater energy and consistency to be applied to promoting high ethical standards and for a more robust set of checks and balances in the accountability structures of local policing.
The Committee has also published Public Understanding of Police Accountability, setting out the results of research conducted on behalf of the Committee by Ipsos MORI and analysed by Chris Prosser of the University of Oxford. (29 June 2015)
DfT: Harbours Act 1964 section 40A – Consultation on the applications of the statutory harbour authorities for 25 harbours in England and 6 non-fishery harbours in Wales for their designation with the power to give harbour directions: Summary of responses: sets out the outcome of the December 2014 consultation on a first wave of applications from harbour authorities to be designated with the power to give harbour directions for the movement, mooring, equipment and manning of ships in their harbours. The paper also outlines the next steps to be taken. (3 July 2015)
Crown Commercial Service: Schools and academies newsletter – July issue: latest edition of the quarterly newsletter for schools and academies to help them meet the regulations surrounding how public money is spent and achieve best value when buying commonly required goods and services. (8 July 2015)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section please contact Emily Heard.
Serious Crime Act 2015 (Commencement No. 2) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/1428 (C.80)): these regulations bring s.73 of the 2015 Act into force on 17 July 2015. Section 73 inserts new s.5A and Sch.2 into the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 to make provision for female genital mutilation protection orders in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. (25 June 2015)
HM Treasury: Administration of business rates in England – Interim findings: this paper summarises the Government's interim findings on the administrative reform of business rates and sets out how it proposes to respond to businesses' calls for clearer billing, better sharing of information and a more efficient appeals system. Annex A provides analysis carried out by the Valuation Office Agency to show how more frequent revaluations might affect business rate bills. The Government has committed to making these practical improvements to the business rates system by 2017. (8 July 2015)
DCLG: Business rates avoidance – Summary of responses: in December 2014 the Government issued a discussion paper on business rates avoidance. This paper lists the respondents and summarises stakeholder views on the methods and scale of avoidance. It will announce how it intends to develop anti-avoidance measures in due course. (8 July 2015)
DBIS: Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 – Statement on control by a public authority: regulations that affect only the public sector are excluded from the scope of certain provisions in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, specifically the business impact target and statutory reviews. The Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a statement on how 'control by a public authority' is to be determined. This statement advises that in determining whether a business or voluntary body is 'controlled by a public authority', Departments should follow the current classification system operated by the Office for National Statistics as set out in the ONS Public Sector Classification Guide. (1 July 2015)
LGA: 'Car litter louts' – New powers called for by councils: the LGA is calling on the Government to close a legal loophole on car litter louts in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to give local authorities the power to fine the owner of the vehicle, regardless of who threw the trash. As the law stands, councils must positively identify who has thrown the litter out of a car window, which is hugely difficult. (4 July 2015)
BBC: Hoddesdon £8K orange peel appeal spat with Broxbourne Council: reports that Stevenage magistrates' court has allowed an appeal against a fixed penalty notice issued by the Council against a man who dropped a small piece of orange peel on the street. The man had immediately picked up the peel and binned it, when it was pointed out to him, and apologised. He was then sent a £75 FPN. The magistrates accepted the defence that the offence of littering required evidence of intent. The cost of the nine-month battle to the Council is estimated to be about £4,000. (7 July 2015)
Covid-19 Vaccination: FAQs for Health & Social Care Employers
The UKAS Accreditation Scheme
Consultation – CQC's New 5 Year Strategy


text:
19/10/2011 | Inequality and �the indignant ones�
The anger grows. �The indignant ones� � those who protest on public squares � reserve their largest quota of ire against the unfair differences in income. To them, it is shameful that some executives or business owners make more than 100 times what ordinary workers earn, especially now that 10 percent of the population is unemployed.
Are they right? I don't think so. In a free economy, it is the market that — to a great extent — sets people's incomes. Don't forget that the market is the result of the decisions of millions of people. For example, by their tenacious determination to watch Oprah Winfrey's program, television viewers enable that lady to make $290 million a year. If the average income of the janitor who cleans a TV studio is $29,000 per annum, Oprah makes 10,000 times that amount. Should she be condemned for greed? Why, if her income is the result of the decision of the sovereign consumer?
The same could be said about novelists James Patterson ($88 million a year, the writer with the world's largest income) and Stephen King ($28 million); tennis player Rafael Nadal ($31 million); baseball player Alex Rodriguez ($38 million); soccer star David Beckham ($40 million); golfer Tiger Woods ($75 million) and movie directors David Cameron ($257 million), George Lucas ($170 million) and Steven Spielberg ($107 million).
All these figures and others are just a click away, on a website called paywizard.org. It includes people who work for one dollar a year, such as the mayor of New York City, multimillionaire Michael Bloomberg, and Pope Benedict XVI, who doesn't even receive the one dollar but is remunerated with housing, food, clothing and the rest of the expenses generated by his complex job as leader of the Roman Catholic Church.
It is known that we are born with an innate perception of distributive justice. Babies are capable of realizing that other creatures receive more milk or food than they do, and they show their displeasure when that happens. But along with that intuitive reaction there is another: to seize the largest amount of food or someone else's toys, without stopping to think that that action generates a sort of comparative grievance. The child is annoyed when someone else has more food than he does, but is very pleased when the opposite happens.
The same occurs among adults. Michael Moore, apostle of the indignant ones, earns through his documentaries, books and public appearances 30 or 40 times what his fans make, but, in his case, that economic superiority is perceived as a confirmation of his talent, not as proof of the unfairness of the system. Hypocrisy? Could be. The smug fellow now has a subject for a much-needed movie against himself and against the industry of social denunciation.
Simply put, the free economy does not seek an equal distribution of income but the material success of those who — through their talent, luck, connections or whatever, so long as they obey the law — end up profiting, a phenomenon that sometimes irritates most of the citizens but at other times seems to please them.
For example, the recent death of Steve Jobs, the creator of Apple, generated a huge wave of sympathy for him and increased devotion toward his firm, especially among young people, a group that included the indignant ones who protested against Wall Street and inequality. They didn't realize that, thanks to the greed of the investors, who saw in the electronic-gadget company a chance to make money, Apple had become the second wealthiest company in the U.S. market, with a capitalization of more than $319 billion, more than the GNP of Colombia or Venezuela. I might mention that Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, earns an annual salary of $59 million.
Naturally, what is very bad is for governments to rescue the companies that have lost favor among the consumers and, to boot, pay the executives their salaries with public money. That is going against the market. If Bank of America decides to pay something less than $2 million a year to its president, Brian T. Moynihan, it should do so with the shareholders' money, not the taxpayers', who were forced into the questionable task of saving that financial institution.
The indignant ones are right to protest when losses are socialized and profits are privatized. They are wrong when they become irritated by the differences in income. That's the way the market is. Where it works, society as a whole is a lot more prosperous, even though sometimes more unequal.
www.elblogdemontaner.com
03/09/2012 Hugo Beteta, director CEPAL para Centroam�rica y M�xico: �El modelo est� haciendo agua por todos lados�
01/09/2012 Global Economy - The Geopolitical Consequences of a New Great Depression
26/08/2012 Global Finance - Just Blame the Mathematicians?
26/08/2012 Global Energy - Nudging Europe's Energy Transformation
25/08/2012 Liderazgo mundial - S� hay soluci�n
18/08/2012 Global Finance: The Danger of More Financial Concentration

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Civil Rights at Howard University
N A started this petition to Howard University Students
Howard University's History of Civil Rights Violations Highlighted https://medium.com/@brocktillman83/a-history-of-a-failure-to-accommodate-7952433adc1b
Investigations detail the history of a failure to accommodate students at Howard University. The University's reaction to requests for disability accommodations has been plagued with documented retaliation. Students have requested accommodations for disabilities and yet often times the administration not only fails to accommodate them, but the University has consistently refused to acknowledge it's wrongs. The University has also been reluctant to willfully rectify these acts even when litigation comes into play. President Wayne Frederick has been informed on numerous occasions.
The history and distribution of disability discrimination and retaliation clearly shows that this is a systemic problem. Recently, for two-years, officials at Howard University have steadfastly refused to accommodate a medical student's disability. Howard University failed to make the available accommodations where needed to ensure that Mr. Doe demonstrated his aptitude and achievement, rather than his disability on the standardized exams. Further, Howard University failed to uphold its basic administrative duties as well — failing to register the student for required classes on time and denying him a copy of the course materials. However, these and other civil rights violations proved to be acts done by Howard for decades (https://medium.com/@brocktillman83/a-history-of-a-failure-to-accommodate-7952433adc1b ).
The following is a representative sample of the instances in which the University either overtly retaliated against Mr. Doe or denied him support or policy benefits to which he had a right: · Mr. Doe was required to sit for the National Board of Medical Examiners' Medicine Examination a full ten days before his clerkship term ended; · Mr. Doe was required to restart the third-year curriculum having 2 rotations within a 14-month period. · On the morning of Mr. Doe's Neurology shelf examination, he was not informed that the exam time had changed from 2 pm to 11:30 am. · In April of 2015, Mr. Doe was not properly registered for a clerkship, resulting in his being omitted from the roster and not receiving necessary course materials, including the syllabus, class schedule, and clerkship handbook.
Despite multiple requests, no Howard University representative ever provided Mr. Doe with this material. · In April of 2015, the faculty and administration refused to provide Mr. Doe with course materials despite numerous requests. · Mr. Doe was omitted from the class roster during the Medicine rotation and counted absent on such days. · In May of 2015, residents and faculty informed Mr. Doe that Dr. Poddar, the clerkship director, had been asking them to write letters of criticism about him. Mr. Doe then contacted Dr. Poddar directly, inquiring if there were any concerns or issues. However, Dr. Poddar refused to answer; · Despite having already completed and passed the pediatrics clerkship according to Dr. Wright, the Chair of Pediatrics, Mr. Doe was ordered by Drs. Nikki Stewart and Swati Jain to complete an additional week of nursery rotation. · Dr. Jain also refused to accept Mr. Doe's excused absence for a doctor's appointment which had been approved by Dean Bland. · Mr. Doe was required to spend an extra week at Children's National Medical Center. · After Mr. Doe submitted two formal complaints against Dr. Jain regarding her failure to accommodate his condition and the disparate treatment he faced, Dr. Jain retaliated against him by changing him performance in nursery rotation from pass to fail, in spite of him initial success; · Dr. Kalburgi always required another person to be present when she met with Mr. Doe– a requirement she did not have with other students.
The University repeatedly failed to provide Mr. Doe with mentorship, guidance, and timely feedback throughout the entire time period at issue even after Mr. Doe shared his concerns with Howard President, Dr. Wayne Frederick. Despite LCME standards requiring the University to provide him with intervention and assistance, no efforts to reach out and assist him in remediating problems as they arose were made. · In the University's Committee on Student Promotion meeting, Mr. Doe was not afforded due process. The meeting was replete with acts of bias, retaliation and abuse of process. Further, there were substantial misrepresentations regarding his attendance and performance at rotations and courses. In Mr. Doe's meeting with the University's Committee on Student Promotion and Graduation, there were 5 members and not the necessary quorum.
According to the case of Pride v Howard University, a quorum consists of four faculty members and four students. · Mr. Doe was denied access to certain of his course records despite him making a Family Education Rights and Privacy Act request, thereby limiting his ability to provide further proof to Dean Mighty that faculty and administration had academically mobbed him with collusion and lack of objectivity at play. · In order to enforce third year to be repeated by Mr. Doe, Howard University Officials changed the name and course numbers of his third-year courses taken to different courses in violation of U.S. Department of Education policies. ·Mr. Doe was denied support and facilitation of a transfer to another medical school by the Howard College of Medicine administration.
This suggests malicious intent to do harm to Mr. Doe by denying him the opportunity to complete his education. Howard College of Medicine Officials mobbed Mr. Doe of his academic opportunity. Detailed analysis of Mr. Doe's documented experiences reveals that Howard University arguably violated the following: American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Interference with Disability Rights Code 503 (B) Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985); Liability for denial, discrimination or retaliation for not allowing persons with disabilities to have accommodations (42 U.S.C. § 12203); Violent interference with a federally protected right (18 U.S.C. § 245); Deprivation of civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983); Proceedings in vindication of civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1988,); Prohibition of retaliation (42 U.S.C. § 1997d); DC Human Rights Act of 1977 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Lack of Due Process); First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (unconstitutional restraint of speech and association) Numerous student rights in higher education; Common law Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Gross Negligence Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Civil fraud Breach of good faith and fair dealing Unjust enrichment (through your tuition) A History of Disability Discrimination and Retaliation According to Mesumbe v. Howard University (D.C. 2010), the College of Medicine allowed a student to take the Internal Medicine shelf examination three times, in violation of the university policies; these policies clearly require a student who fails a shelf exam twice to repeat the clerkship for that subject. In the College of Medicine another student failed the Pediatrics and Psychiatry shelf examinations, but was promoted to his fourth year, in violation of the University Policies. After Mesumbe was diagnosed with a disability, he received accommodations and the times he took exams unaccommodated were not counted against him. Further, he was allowed to take one exam four times. In the case of Mr. Doe, the two third years when he was not properly accommodated counted against him.
According to Bain v. Howard University, "other students who failed two clerkships who… were allowed to repeat only the clerkships they failed rather than an entire academic year." This clearly contradicts the policies of Howard College of Medicine. Mr. Bain argued that these students received more advantageous treatment because Howard had a more favorable disposition towards them. He also states that Howard, "manipulated him answers before submitt[ing] them to the NBME for scoring to ensure that I would fail the tests." While this accusation seems extreme, in Howard's response to Mr. Bain's affidavit, they do not deny manipulating his answers. Howard's statement replied that it "receives examinations from the NBME . . ., administers the examinations, returns the examinations and student answer-sheets to NBME . . ., and receives numerical scores from the NBME after grading." What was the rational basis and the motivation for these academic decisions? While Mr. Bain does not state whether he had a disability, Bain v. Howard University does show that there is a history of discriminatory treatment in the College of Medicine in which certain students receive arbitrary and capricious grading. It also correlates to the experience of Mr. Doe and others in facing disability discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Here in Bain v. Howard University , a student committed suicide after student led protests against the academic standards of the College of Medicine. This marked a period of profound discord and betrayal between faculty and students based on the subsequent comments made by students. A spate of other activities soon take place, further enflaming tensions — these included the tragedy of a student committing suicide, a student-led protest in the College of Medicine, and the events took place in a hostile retaliatory academic environment.[1] This environment suggests that there is a rich history of challenges relating to fairness and human rights.
The fact that a student committed suicide after leading a protest suggests that the student was not heard. It suggests that she was not accommodated and that there was deliberate indifference to her mental health. Pattern throughout the University In the complaint Madison and Tease v. Howard University and Nickelberry, filed on September 28, 2018, in DC Superior Court, the Plaintiffs allege that some of the same or similar accusations against Howard University. This complaint — along with many others — strongly support the notion that there is a systemic pattern of disregard for those who are disabled.
There is a pattern of retaliation, violating students' rights, and failing to accommodate students with disabilities in the Howard University System. In this complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Howard officials' actions purposefully violated regulatory rules concerning students. In the case of Mr. Doe, Howard purposefully violated the ADA regarding his disability accommodations and subsequently committed bias related acts of retaliation and violated his civil and student rights. In Madison and Tease v. Howard University and Nickelberry, the plaintiffs make allegations and describes instances where Howard University officials engaged in behaviors which "ends their professional career." In his complaint, because of disability discrimination and retaliation, Howard University officials subsequently performed the acts of failure to accommodate Mr. Doe and dismissed him from the College of Medicine, both of which effectively ended Mr. Doe's career. In Madison and Tease v. Howard University and Nickelberry, we see unmistakable evidence that Howard officials disregarded the safety and well-being of students, even engaging in psychological abuse. In the experiences of Mr. Doe, Howard College of Medicine officials disregarded his safety and well-being by encouraging him to not go to his doctors' appointments and ignoring the accommodation requests made. In Madison and Tease v. Howard University and Nickelberry, the plaintiffs state that a Howard official "played the aggrieved students when they were injured despite the objections of the aggrieved students as well as the warning of his own staff. If he perceived that the students were even slightly resisting his dangerous demands to unreasonable risk severe injury, he would resort to outright verbal and emotional abuse, as well as public shaming as a method of manipulation.
In the College of Medicine, Howard Officials employed a barrage of tactics designed to inflict maximum verbal and emotional abuse, including public shaming to manipulate and intentionally inflect emotional distress and duress at times when Mr. Doe requested to be accommodated. The plaintiffs in Madison and Tease v. Howard University and Nickelberry allege that when they were physically disabled, a Howard official and the university at large failed to accommodate the needs and refused to let them recover. Further, the plaintiffs allege that as Howard University students, they experienced extreme forms of retaliation that placed them at serious risk to injury as students of the University. This pattern of behavior is sadly no single isolated incident, as should be abundantly clear by now. Mr. Doe's experiences were littered with events in which he encountered extreme forms of retaliation that caused him to be at risk to severe injury. Further, the extreme acts committed by Howard officials injured his standing in the academic community and in his profession, causing him to become very ill. As with the plaintiffs in Madison and Tease v. Howard University and Nickelberry, Howard refused to let Mr. Doe recover by discouraging him from taking his medicine and visiting his doctor. Like these plaintiffs, Mr. Doe also encountered several occasions in which he did not receive course materials in a timely manner or accessible format until after the academic term had already begun. With events like these raise concerns about the University's intent to do right by students with disabilities. At this point, Howard University has refused to right the wrongs that have been done to Mr. Doe, Mr. Tease, Mr. Madison, Jane Does one through six, and other former Howard College of Medicine students who have begun to disclose their experiences. Instead, it has taken students with valid claims through legal processes in order to avoid allowing them equal access to the educational opportunities the sought from the University.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/howard-university-probing-wheelchair-dump-of-hospital-patient/2017/05/16/1c410a00-3a52-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?utm_term=.9e6c552d701b
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/howard-university-continues-fight-for-affiliation-with-new-southeast-dc-hospital/65-620524624


Parallax scrolling effect is the latest innovation in the themes being used for new websites. This illusion of movement in layers has caught the eyes of various webmasters and makes the website more attractive. We have created a list of some of the best parallax scrolling themes that might meet all your requirements for your website.
Positivus is a retina ready theme that proves to be a nice parallax theme for portfolio websites. It supports WordPress 4.1 and comes with tons of features like Google fonts, parallax section breaks, responsiveness, SEO optimization feature, more than 75 custom vector icons, dynamic header and footer. Along with this one can find additional features like batch font icons, skill bars, columns, page builder option horizontal rules highlighters. This is surely one of the best parallax themes built in recent times that helps the webmaster in presenting the portfolio in an innovative manner.
Acid is a responsive theme that is translation ready and has a single page design. The user gets unlimited colour options and there is a mini parallax effect added in this theme. The navigation has been made much better with the addition of post-post navigation feature. The users get the option of horizontal scrolling and this makes the website very attractive for the end user. It is suitable for various corporate websites as well as news and journal websites. You get two options to display the portfolio, either as a popup or as a case study. The social icons are retina ready and the you get an custom logo upload option.
This is a fully responsive theme that is stunningly creative and the layout is very unique when compared with other parallax themes. It uses the bootstrap 2.3 version that makes it even better and easy to use for the users. The users get the option to either scroll vertically or horizontally. The scroll effect is a highlight of the theme and it makes it look very different while you view it on a tablet or a smartphone.
Swag can be called as the most complete parallax theme developed in recent times. With the revolution slider, camera slider, custom quickshop feature, various pricing tables, different patterns and product sorting options this site makes it very easy for the users to build a fully complete excommerce website. It supports WooCommerce and the single page product view feature makes it very attractive for the visitors while they scroll through the products.
Athletica has a fluidic design and this retina ready one page parallax theme can be used for business websites, different blogs as well as portfolio websites. It comes with a wide range of features that include six different styles of homepage, ten different templates, multiple colours features and unlimited variations in the template of the website. It supports WooCommerce and the user can list their products various different styles.
ROSA is an easy to use parallax theme that suits any restaurant or hotel website. It is very dynamic and has a narrative look. The users can use it to showcase their galleries, open table reservations or present their website menus through a single page. Its parallax scrolling features has précised typography and one can use full screen images without facing any breakage. This makes it even better while using it for a hotel or restaurant website.
Incentive is an all purpose theme that can be used by corporates, blog owners, artists or people owning simple blogs. Even photographers can use it to display their artistic works with ease. It has a runway framework, retina ready design and it is compatible with all kinds or browsers and devices.
If you would like to list you theme here, please drop it in the comments below.


text:
How The Mighty Have Fallen
By Kelsey Keith Sep 14, 2011, 11:48am EDT
This week's big fish in the Wall Street Journal real estate hall o' fame is an 18-room mansion in Katonah, north of New York City, formerly owned by Sony exec (and Mariah Carey ex) Tommy Mottola, on the market for $22 million. But! The story gets better: controversial ad man Peter Arnell bought the spread for $18.3 million in 2001, just as Arnell Group was bought by Omnicom. Since then, Peter's been ousted from his namesake agency, his wife was promoted as CEO, and WSJ profile promoting the sale doesn't even mention his name. [WSJ]


Need some reminding of the best and most classic Christmas films?
StaffsLive have put together a list of the best Christmas movies to get you into the ultimate Christmas mood!
The classic 2003 American Christmas family comedy has to be on the list! Starring Will Ferrell as a fun loving elf, it's full of fun, humour and lots of festive cheer!
A 2003 Christmas themed romantic comedy, Love actually has to make the list! A movie that follows a range of different people and explores the different elements of love. Starring some big names such as Alan Rickman, Rowan Atkinson, Hugh Grant and Kiera Knightly.
Home Alone just takes you back doesn't it? The 1990 comedy follows when young Kevin McCallister's family leave him at home alone whilst on vacation by accident. The 8-year old uses his mischievous and clever mind to fight off robbers.
The Polar Express (2004) is an animated film starring Tom Hanks. The story follows a young boy who goes on an adventure to the magical North Pole, boarding the polar express to take him on his journey.
Arnold Schwarzenegger stars in this 1996 American comedy as a stressed father who promises to get his son the new Turbo Man action figure for Christmas… until all stores are sold out! A hilarious, family favourite that makes everyone feel Christmassy!
Tim Burton's 1993 animated film which blends Christmas and Halloween is a big hit during the holiday season. The dark-fantasy film tells the story of Jack Skellington, a resident of spooky Halloween Town.
The 2000 American Christmas film is adapted from the original Children's book published in 1957 by Dr.Seuss. The grumpy grinch is all about anti-Christmas and plans on ruining Christmas for everyone. A true classic to sit and enjoy with family and friends.
The Santa Claus is a 1994 family comedy film. A man accidentally kills Santa on Christmas Eve and finds himself in the big man's suit to take over the job as Santa Claus!
A charming, funny and heart warming film. The Holiday was released in 2006 and is a festive romantic comedy. It features Kate Winslet, Cameron Diaz, Jack Black and the gorgeous Jude Law. It follows the story of two women who have guy problems and manage to find romance whilst swapping homes and countries for a break.
An animated 2011 film which shows Santa's clumsy son, Arthur go on a mission to give out a misplaced present to a young girl in under 2 hours.
Time to bust out the popcorn and mince pies for a fun night in with family and friends to get through this epic list of films! Christmas season would of course not be the same without these classics.


text:
A Deep Dive Into The Decision Striking Down CA's Magazine Ban
Posted at 7:00 pm on August 14, 2020 by Cam Edwards
While we wait to see how California Attorney General Xavier Becerra will respond to today's decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down the state's ban on magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds, it's worth taking a closer look at the decision itself, as well as the judges on the panel that heard the case.
The opinion was authored by Judge Kenneth Lee, who was appointed to the bench in 2018 by President Donald Trump. Joining him in the majority opinion was Judge Consuelo Callahan, appointed to the Ninth Circuit in 2003 by President George W. Bush. The one dissenting judge in the case, Barbara M. Lynn, received her appointment to the bench back in 1999 thanks to President Bill Clinton.
Let's dive in to Judge Lee's decision, which begins by noting that lawmakers may have approved the state's ban on so-called Large Capacity Magazines with the best of intentions.
In the wake of heart-wrenching and highly publicized mass shootings, the state of California barred its citizens from owning so-called "large capacity magazines" (LCMs) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. But even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster. California's near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment. Indeed, from pre-colonial times to today's post-modern era, the right to defend hearth and home has remained paramount.
California's law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense. The ban makes it criminal for Californians to own magazines that come standard in Glocks, Berettas, and other handguns that are staples of self-defense. Its scope is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California. Even law-abiding citizens, regardless of their training and track record, must alter or turn over to the state any LCMs that they may have legally owned for years — or face up to a year in jail.
The state of California has latitude in enacting laws to curb the scourge of gun violence, and has done so by imposing waiting periods and many other limitations. But the Second Amendment limits the state's ability to second guess a citizen's choice of arms if it imposes a substantial burden on her right to self-defense. Many Californians may find solace in the security of a handgun equipped with an LCM: those who live in rural areas where the local sheriff may be miles away, law-abiding citizens trapped in high crime areas, communities that distrust or depend less on law enforcement, and many more who rely on their firearms to protect themselves and their families. California's almost blanket ban on LCMs goes too far in substantially burdening the people's right to self-defense. We affirm the district court's summary judgment, and hold that California Penal Code section 32310's ban on LCMs runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
How did the majority reach the conclusion that the state's ban on "Large Capacity Magazines" violates the constitutional rights of residents? They began by noting the common usage of LCMs among gun owners.
Millions of Americans across the country own LCMs. One estimate based in part on government data shows that from 1990 to 2015, civilians possessed about 115 million LCMs out of a total of 230 million magazines in circulation. Put another way, half of all magazines in America hold more than ten rounds. Today, LCMs may be lawfully possessed in 41 states and under federal law. Notably, LCMs are commonly used in many handguns, which the Supreme Court has recognized as the "quintessential self-defense weapon."
Lee notes that the state of California argues that the ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of LCMs isn't an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms because gun owners can always use more magazines with a smaller capacity, but Lee disagrees, declaring that the ban "severely burdens the core of the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms." The judge goes on to say that the law in question "is a poor means to accomplish the state's interests and cannot survive strict scrutiny," but also notes that even under intermediate scrutiny it would still fail the Ninth Circuit's test of constitutionality.
The Ninth Circuit assesses the constitutionality of firearm regulations under a two-prong test. This inquiry "(1) asks whether the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment and (2) if so, directs courts to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny." To determine whether the law burdens protected conduct, this court appears to ask four questions.
First, as a threshold matter, we determine whether the law regulates "arms" for purposes of the Second Amendment. Second, we ask whether the law regulates an arm that is both dangerous and unusual. If the regulated arm is both dangerous and unusual, then the regulation does not burden protected conduct and the inquiry ends. Third, we assess whether the regulation is longstanding and thus presumptively lawful. And fourth, we inquire whether there is any persuasive historical evidence in the record showing that the regulation affects rights that fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.
If either of these latter questions is found in the affirmative, the law does not burden protected conduct and the inquiry ends. If a court finds that a regulation burdens protected conduct, then it must proceed to the second prong of analysis and determine the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.
This, in turn, requires the court to ask two more questions. First, we ask how "close" the challenged law comes to the core right of law-abiding citizens to defend hearth and home. And second, we analyze whether the law imposes substantial burdens on the core right. If a challenged law does not strike at the core Second Amendment right or substantially burden that right, then intermediate scrutiny applies. Only where both questions are answered in the affirmative will strict scrutiny apply.
Judge Lee notes that ammunition magazines are already considered "arms" under Ninth Circuit precedent and are in common use and typically used for law-abiding purposes. In fact, the judge spends a couple of pages going over the history of firearms in the United States with a capacity of more than ten rounds, noting that the first such firearms were invented around 1580, and would not have been seen as novelties or theoretical inventions to the Founding Fathers.
When it comes to the question of whether or not the ban on LCMs is a "longstanding" and presumptively lawful statute, Lee correctly points out that "longstanding" is a fairly subjective term.
In our circuit, we have looked for evidence showing whether the challenged law traces its lineage to founding-era or Reconstruction-era regulations. In Chovan, for example, we expressed strong doubts that bans on firearm possession for violent offenders were sufficiently longstanding because the first known restriction was not enacted until 1938. In Jackson, we reviewed regulations on handgun storage and sales of certain ammunition, keying our analysis to analogues in founding-era and Reconstruction-era fire safety laws.
Section 32310 cannot be considered a longstanding regulation that enjoys presumptive legality. As noted above, when the Founders ratified the Second Amendment, no laws restricted ammunition capacity despite multi-shot firearms having been in existence for some 200 years. Only during Prohibition did a handful of state legislatures enact capacity restrictions
Lee also points out that while Congress placed fully automatic machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934, they didn't include magazines of any size in the gun control law. A ban on LCM's was put in place as part of the Clinton Gun Ban in 1994, but unlike California's law, that contained a grandfather clause that allowed for continued possession of currently owned magazines.
Having determined that the first step in the two-pronged process has been satisfied, Lee then turns his attention to the standard of review that should be used. According to the judge, the state's mag ban strikes at the core of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because by "banning LCMs everywhere for nearly everyone, it necessarily bans possession of LCMs within the home where protections are 'at their zenith.'" The law also imposes a "substantial burden" on gun owners because it:
"… categorically bars the possession of magazines that are commonly used in handguns, the "quintessential self-defense weapon." And it bans LCM possession for nearly everyone, everywhere in California. Simply put, any law that comes close to categorically banning the possession of arms that are commonly used for self-defense imposes a substantial burden on the Second Amendment.
Judge Lee then engages in another valuable history lesson, this time on how the right to self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms has been utilized throughout American history, as well as how that right has been denied to some Americans.
After the founding, Southern states often severely limited, or outright prohibited, firearm possession by slaves, freedmen, and others. The judicial branch, too, played a role in denying this fundamental right of self-defense to Blacks. In the infamous Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, Chief Justice Taney recited a parade of horribles if Black Americans were to be considered citizens: it would give Blacks the "right to enter every other State whenever they pleased," to exercise "full liberty of speech," to "hold public meetings upon political affairs," and "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
It did not get much better even after a bloody war that tore the country apart. Post-Civil War state legislation and the Black Codes in the South deprived newly freed slaves of their Second Amendment rights. Meanwhile, armed bands of ex-Confederates roamed the countryside forcibly disarming and terrorizing AfricanAmericans. The Radical Republicans in Congress fought back against these "systematic efforts . . . to disarm" Black Americans by enacting the Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, both of which guaranteed all persons the right of self-defense…
Not surprisingly, Black Americans embraced their right to self-defense, understanding that protections offered by the state may be promising in theory but fatal in fact. Ida B. Wells — the crusading journalist who co-founded the NAACP — wrote that "a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give."
The entire history lesson is too long to reprint here, but you can find it starting on page 35 of the opinion, and it's well worth a read. The reason for the look back at how the Second Amendment has been used over the centuries, according to Lee, is to "drive home the point that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right."
"Nor is self-defense a dispensation granted at the state's mercy. Rather, the Second Amendment is a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed to the people — especially those who may not be equally protected by the state. Moreover, the Second Amendment is not a relic relevant only during the era of Publius and parchments. It is a right that is exercised hundreds of times on any given day. The parties and amici disagree on the number of times that guns are used for defensive purposes, offering anywhere from 240,000 to 2.5 million times a year. That means that an average of 657 Americans — and perhaps up to 6,849 Americans — use guns to defend themselves every single day of the year. We take notice of this fact in recognizing the fundamental right of self-defense.
The state of California argues that the Second Amendment is indeed a second-class right, one that "deserves less protection because it allegedly poses an inherent danger to public safety that other rights do not." Not so, according to Judge Lee, who points out that the Supreme Court said in McDonald v. Chicago that "the right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category."
There is also no stopping point to the state's argument. Under its logic, California could limit magazines to as few as three bullets and not substantially burden Second Amendment rights because, on average, 2.2 bullets are used in every defensive encounter according to one study.21 But the threat to life does not occur in an average act in the abstract; self-defense takes place in messy, unpredictable, and extreme events. And what's more, the state's logic is in no way limited to restricting the number of bullets in a magazine.
If it is not substantially burdensome to limit magazines to ten rounds because the average defensive shooter uses fewer bullets, then there is no reason it could not impose a one-gun-per-person rule. In fact, there is a more compelling case to impose a one-gun policy under the state's theory. After all, the study relied on by the state also shows that an overwhelming majority of mass shootings involved the use of multiple guns while a relative few definitively involved LCMs. This cannot be right. We would never uphold such a draconian limitation on other fundamental and enumerated constitutional rights.
Interestingly, Judge Lee actually uses the words of Sen. Kamala Harris to bolster his argument that LCM's may be of particular benefit to gun owners in "communities of color", who:
"…do not trust law enforcement and are less likely — over 40% less likely, according to one study — to call 911 even during emergencies. See 163 Cong. Rec. S1257-58 (daily ed. Feb. 16, 2017) (statement of Sen. Kamala Harris) (discussing a study showing that certain ethnic groups are over 40% less likely to call 911 in an emergency); see also Nik Theodore & Robert Habans, Policing Immigrant Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement, 42 J. of Ethnic and Migration Stud. 970 (2016). These citizens may rely more on self-defense than the "average" person in a home invasion or some other emergency.
That last bit should provide some great campaign fodder for the Trump campaign to use against Biden and Harris as they tout their anti-gun agenda over the coming months.
Having explained why strict scrutiny is the proper judicial lens through which to examine the state's magazine ban, Judge Lee decided to do some extra credit work and also lay out why the ban fails under intermediate scrutiny as well.
Section 32310 fails intermediate scrutiny for many of the same reasons it fails strict scrutiny. Even with the greater latitude offered by this less demanding standard, section 32310's fit is excessive and sloppy. In his dissent in Heller, Justice Breyer would have upheld D.C.'s law under his interest-balancing test because the law was "tailored to the urban crime problem that is local in scope and thus affects only a geographic area both limited in size and entirely urban."
Not so here. The statute operates as a blanket ban on all types of LCMs everywhere in California for almost everyone. It applies to rural and urban areas, in places with low crime rates and high crime rates, areas where law enforcement response times may be significant, to those who may have high degrees of proficiency in their use for self-defense, and to vulnerable groups who are in the greatest need of self-defense. The law also prohibits possession outright. And it applies to all firearms, including handguns that are the "quintessential self-defense weapon.
That's not the only problem with the magazine ban, even under intermediate scrutiny.
Section 32310's failure to incorporate a grandfather clause is another red flag. We do not write on a blank slate on this matter. This court has already held that grandfather clauses are "important" in reducing burdens generated by a restriction. It follows that grandfather clauses are also important to assess fit. Without such a clause, law-abiding citizens who legally possessed LCMs before enactment are deprived of the right to use those arms for lawful ends. These law-abiding citizens could have owned LCM for decades, and perhaps even used them for self-defense in the past. But none of that matters under California law. They must turn them over — or face a year in jail. Based on the record before us, there is no apparent justification or support for the lack of a grandfather exception.
The state speculates that a complete prohibition is necessary to avoid legally owned LCMs from falling into the wrong hands. But the flaws of that argument are obvious. The state could ban virtually anything if the test is merely whether something causes social ills when someone other than its lawful owner misuses it. Adopting such a radical position would give the government carte blanche to restrict the people's liberties under the guise of protecting them.
After that exhaustive look at why California's magazine ban fails both strict and intermediate scrutiny, Judge Lee sums up the position of the majority.
Let us be clear: We are keenly aware of the perils of gun violence. The heartbreak and devastation caused by criminals wielding guns cannot be overstated. And we also understand the importance of allowing state governments the ability to fashion solutions to curb gun violence. We have thus held that California can, for example, impose waiting periods, require microstamping of guns, and forbid felons, the mentally ill, or misdemeanants convicted of domestic violence from owning firearms.
We also want to make clear that our decision today does not address issues not before us. We do not opine on bans on so-called "assault weapons," nor do we speculate about the legitimacy of bans on magazines holding far larger quantities of ammunition. Instead, we only address California's ban on LCMs as it appears before us. We understand the purpose in passing this law. But even the laudable goal of reducing gun violence must comply with the Constitution. California's near-categorical ban of LCMs infringes on the fundamental right to self-defense. It criminalizes the possession of half of all magazines in America today. It makes unlawful magazines that are commonly used in handguns by law abiding citizens for self-defense. And it substantially burdens the core right of self-defense guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment. It cannot stand.
Judge's Lee's opinion is thoughtful, thorough, and compelling. Will it stand up to review by either an en banc review by a larger poll of judges in the Ninth Circuit, or possibly even the Supreme Court? Coming up tomorrow we'll take a look at the dissenting arguments put forth by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn and weigh the merits of her dissent against Judge Lee's majority opinion.
Tags: CaliforniaCalifornia magazine banDuncan v Becerramagazine banNinth CircuitXavier Becerra
Author's Bio: Cam Edwards
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist, as well as the co-author of "Heavy Lifting: Grow Up, Get a Job, Start a Family, and Other Manly Advice" with Jim Geraghty. He lives outside of Farmville, Virginia with his family.
More posts from Cam Edwards


text:
<?php

namespace common\models;

use Yii;

/**
 * This is the model class for table "mail_message".
 *
 * @property integer $id
 * @property string $create_date
 * @property string $write_date
 * @property integer $mail_server_id
 * @property integer $write_uid
 * @property string $subject
 * @property integer $create_uid
 * @property integer $parent_id
 * @property integer $subtype_id
 * @property integer $res_id
 * @property string $message_id
 * @property string $body
 * @property string $model
 * @property string $record_name
 * @property boolean $no_auto_thread
 * @property string $date
 * @property integer $author_id
 * @property string $type
 * @property string $reply_to
 * @property string $email_from
 * @property boolean $website_published
 *
 * @property MailComposeMessage[] $mailComposeMessages
 * @property MailMail[] $mailMails
 * @property IrMailServer $mailServer
 * @property MailMessage $parent
 * @property MailMessage[] $mailMessages
 * @property MailMessageSubtype $subtype
 * @property ResPartner $author
 * @property ResUsers $writeU
 * @property ResUsers $createU
 * @property MailMessageResPartnerRel[] $mailMessageResPartnerRels
 * @property MailNotification[] $mailNotifications
 * @property MailVote[] $mailVotes
 * @property MessageAttachmentRel[] $messageAttachmentRels
 */
class MailMessage extends \yii\db\ActiveRecord
{
    /**
     * @inheritdoc
     */
    public static function tableName()
    {
        return 'mail_message';
    }

    /**
     * @inheritdoc
     */
    public function rules()
    {
        return [
            [['create_date', 'write_date', 'date'], 'safe'],
            [['mail_server_id', 'write_uid', 'create_uid', 'parent_id', 'subtype_id', 'res_id', 'author_id'], 'integer'],
            [['subject', 'message_id', 'body', 'record_name', 'reply_to', 'email_from'], 'string'],
            [['no_auto_thread', 'website_published'], 'boolean'],
            [['model'], 'string', 'max' => 128],
            [['type'], 'string', 'max' => 12],
            [['mail_server_id'], 'exist', 'skipOnError' => true, 'targetClass' => IrMailServer::className(), 'targetAttribute' => ['mail_server_id' => 'id']],
            [['parent_id'], 'exist', 'skipOnError' => true, 'targetClass' => MailMessage::className(), 'targetAttribute' => ['parent_id' => 'id']],
            [['subtype_id'], 'exist', 'skipOnError' => true, 'targetClass' => MailMessageSubtype::className(), 'targetAttribute' => ['subtype_id' => 'id']],
            [['author_id'], 'exist', 'skipOnError' => true, 'targetClass' => ResPartner::className(), 'targetAttribute' => ['author_id' => 'id']],
            [['write_uid'], 'exist', 'skipOnError' => true, 'targetClass' => ResUsers::className(), 'targetAttribute' => ['write_uid' => 'id']],
            [['create_uid'], 'exist', 'skipOnError' => true, 'targetClass' => ResUsers::className(), 'targetAttribute' => ['create_uid' => 'id']],
        ];
    }

    /**
     * @inheritdoc
     */
    public function attributeLabels()
    {
        return [
            'id' => Yii::t('Backend', 'ID'),
            'create_date' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Create Date'),
            'write_date' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Write Date'),
            'mail_server_id' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Mail Server ID'),
            'write_uid' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Write Uid'),
            'subject' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Subject'),
            'create_uid' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Create Uid'),
            'parent_id' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Parent ID'),
            'subtype_id' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Subtype ID'),
            'res_id' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Res ID'),
            'message_id' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Message ID'),
            'body' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Body'),
            'model' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Model'),
            'record_name' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Record Name'),
            'no_auto_thread' => Yii::t('Backend', 'No Auto Thread'),
            'date' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Date'),
            'author_id' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Author ID'),
            'type' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Type'),
            'reply_to' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Reply To'),
            'email_from' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Email From'),
            'website_published' => Yii::t('Backend', 'Website Published'),
        ];
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getMailComposeMessages()
    {
        return $this->hasMany(MailComposeMessage::className(), ['parent_id' => 'id']);
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getMailMails()
    {
        return $this->hasMany(MailMail::className(), ['mail_message_id' => 'id']);
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getMailServer()
    {
        return $this->hasOne(IrMailServer::className(), ['id' => 'mail_server_id']);
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getParent()
    {
        return $this->hasOne(MailMessage::className(), ['id' => 'parent_id']);
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getMailMessages()
    {
        return $this->hasMany(MailMessage::className(), ['parent_id' => 'id']);
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getSubtype()
    {
        return $this->hasOne(MailMessageSubtype::className(), ['id' => 'subtype_id']);
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getAuthor()
    {
        return $this->hasOne(ResPartner::className(), ['id' => 'author_id']);
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getWriteU()
    {
        return $this->hasOne(ResUsers::className(), ['id' => 'write_uid']);
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getCreateU()
    {
        return $this->hasOne(ResUsers::className(), ['id' => 'create_uid']);
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getMailMessageResPartnerRels()
    {
        return $this->hasMany(MailMessageResPartnerRel::className(), ['mail_message_id' => 'id']);
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getMailNotifications()
    {
        return $this->hasMany(MailNotification::className(), ['message_id' => 'id']);
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getMailVotes()
    {
        return $this->hasMany(MailVote::className(), ['message_id' => 'id']);
    }

    /**
     * @return \yii\db\ActiveQuery
     */
    public function getMessageAttachmentRels()
    {
        return $this->hasMany(MessageAttachmentRel::className(), ['message_id' => 'id']);
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Perfect doll eyes with extraordinary curl. The Glamour Doll Curl & Volume Mascara ensures a long lasting curl and expressive volume with its curved brush and deep-black texture. Thanks to its special shape, the fibre brush reaches every single lash and covers it with mascara to create a fashionable doll eye effect.


Sony had to pack up its game consoles early after the software giant complained that it was breaking the rules by letting show-goers play with them.
Less than a week after Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer told visitors at the massive CeBit exhibition in Hannover, Germany, that he wanted to see a warmer, friendlier Microsoft, his company has become embroiled in a row with Sony over gaming consoles.
Microsoft complained to the show organizers, Hannover Messe AG, that Sony was breaching show rules by letting people play on Sony PlayStation 2 consoles. Technically, Microsoft was right, and the Messe was forced to act on the complaint.
Sony approached Microsoft to find a compromise and entered into protracted discussions with the Messe for a deal acceptable for all parties. But none could be found, and on Sunday morning Sony started packing up its 27 PS2s. The CeBit show officially finishes on Wednesday.
Microsoft representatives denied that the company had complained to the Messe. But the show organizers confirmed that Richard Roy, vice president, corporate strategy, had complained.
Sony has shown PlayStation consoles for the past three years without any problem, and the Messe said it would not have worried about the situation if Microsoft had not complained.
Microsoft showed its Xbox game console on its stand at the show, with employees demonstrating.
Steve Homer is a special correspondent to ZDNet U.K. in London. Bernd Steinbrink of CeBit News contributed to this report.


text:
SPRING REGISTRATION - NOW OPEN
SSBB Spring '19 Coaches Game
SSBB FIELD
SSBB DODGER DAY
SPRING - FULL TEAM REGISTRATION
SPRING SEASON - FULL TEAM REGISTRATION
Team Parent Info
SSBB Sponsors
ABOUT_+
Santa Susana Baseball (SSBB), located in Simi Valley, California, is the oldest organized youth sports league in Simi Valley.
This organization has been shaping the lives of young boys and girls for more than half a century – just one year less than the Rancho Simi Recreation & Park District, and seven years longer than the City of Simi Valley. The league began in 1962 and has grown to include boys who have gone on to play at the highest levels of baseball, including Division I colleges, the highest levels of the minor leagues, and Major League Baseball including current Anaheim Angels pitcher Jered Weaver and San Francisco Giants reliever Dan Runzler. Previous Major Leaguers who came from the fields at Houghton-Schreiber Park include Chuck Crim, Scott Radinsky, Tim Laker and Jeff Weaver. Scott Sharts still holds baseball records at California State University, Northridge, and players such as Jonathan Meyer, Ben Orloff, Dave Milstien and Mike Hankins either played baseball at Division I universities or at the highest levels of the minor leagues – or both. Bryan Anderson played for the St. Louis Cardinals in 2010 and spent the past season in AAA ball. In addition the entire starting lineup of the 2008 C.I.F. Champion Simi Valley High School Baseball team got their start at Santa Susana Baseball League.
The league is affiliated with PONY Baseball, which began in the 1950s as Protect Our Nation's Youth – so Santa Susana is about as old as its parent organization. Since its inception, SSBB has claimed several national championships including the 1983 Pony Division World Series title.
Santa Susana Baseball offers boys and girls the opportunity to play baseball, make friends, and in general learn life lessons offered by being involved in organized youth sports. The league is a family affair with board members, coaches, team parents and volunteers all participating in the joy of the game.
Events_+
22 All Day Opening Day! Santa Susana Baseball
Social_+
Field Status_+
Moorpark Little League Updated:10.12.2019 01:33PM
Field A
Field D
Field B
SSBB Updated:10.12.2019 01:33PM
Highlights_+


text:
It is nearly impossible to bring together a list of all the royal and state guests that attended the Persepolis celebrations in October 1971. Unlike most grand royal events, the celebration of the 2500th anniversary of the Persian Empire did not only provide an awesome gathering of royalty from around the world, it also meant a most awesome gathering of World leaders which would rarely have been seen together before. All the five continents were represented in Persepolis, especially Europe. Many comments could be made about the guests, such as the fact that the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, had planned to attend, but then dispatched his Vice-President amid fears of a terrorist attack.
The British Foreign Office recommended that Queen Elizabeth II should stay away of Persepolis, because the celebrations would probably be insecure, messy and undignified. The Prince of Wales was suggested to attend, but he refused to go because the celebrations clashed with his Royal Navy training. Prince Philip and Princess Anne volunteered to go, to prevent any diplomatic quarrel with Iran. The old Emperor Hail� Selassi� of Ethiopia was visibly frail during the ceremonies, but he took his little dog, that appeared wearing a magnificent diamond necklace! The Prince and Princess of Naples, who had married discreetly in Teheran without the consent of King Umberto II, were also making their first official appearance.
Above, Princess Anne of the United Kingdom and her father, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who represented Queen Elizabeth II at the Persepolis celebrations. Below, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands in two different moments of the evening, with the Shahbanou and the Shah.
The European Royal Families were present in great force: TM The King and Queen of Denmark, Frederik IX and Ingrid, were the most senior royal guests. From neighbouring Norway HM The King, Olav V also attended, while the old King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden had sent his grandson and heir, HRH Crown Prince Carl Gustaf. The King and Queen of the Belgians, Baudouin I and Fabiola, represented their country in the festivities, while the exiled but still titular sovereign couple of Greece, TM King Constantine and Queen Anne-Marie of The Hellenes, were accompanied by HRH Prince Michael of Greece to the celebrations. HM The Queen of the Netherlands was represented by her husband, HRH The Prince Bernhard.
The Royal Family Luxembourg was also present at the highest level, with TRH The Grand-Duke and Grand-Duchess of Luxembourg, Jean and Josephine-Charlotte, travelling to Iran with their daughter, the young Princess Astrid. TSH The Prince and Princess of Monaco, Rainier III and Grace, attended, as did TSH The Prince and Princess of Liechtenstein, Franz Joseph II and Gina. As told before, HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and HRH The Princess Anne represented Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The Italian Royal Family must be considered as semi-officially represented, as the Prince of Naples wasn�t in good terms with his father, the Head of the House of Savoy.
On the left, Grand-Duke Jean and Grand-Duchess Josephine-Charlotte of Luxembourg. On the right, Queen Fabiola of the Belgians is seen talking to Princess Sofia of Spain.
TRH The Prince and Princess of Spain, Juan Carlos and Sofia, represented General Franco and the Kingdom of Spain at the festivities. Prince Juan Carlos, previously known as Prince of the Asturias, had been designated successor of dictator Francisco Franco �with the title of King� in 1969. The European republics were also well represented: the President of the Soviet Union, Nikolai Podgorny, met in Teheran some of the other communist leaders of Europe: Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia (accompanied by his wife Jovanka), President Ceaucescu of Romania (accompanied by his wife Elena) and President Pal Losonczi of Hungary. President Ludv�k Svoboda of Czechoslovakia, President Cevdet Sunay of Turkey and President Urho Kekkonen of Finland completed the list of European heads of state. His Holiness Pope Paul VI sent Cardinal Maximilian of Furstenberg as his special representative.
The French President had planned to attend, but later decided to send his Prime Minister, Jacques Chaban-Delmas, who was accompanied by his wife, whom he had recently married. The German Chancellor Willy Brandt, who would receive the Nobel Peace Prize a few weeks later in Norway, represented West Germany, while Emilio Colombo, the Italian Prime Minister, represented Italy. Vice-President Klimaszewski represented Poland and Fritz Wahlen, former President of Switzerland, represented his country. Portugal was represented by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Rui Patr�cio.
Above, Prince Rainier and Princess Grace of Monaco, who apparently had to travel to Iran in the same plane that took the King and Queen of the Belgians because their plane broke before leaving Nice. Below, Prince Franz Joseph II and the glamorous Princess Gina of Liechtenstein.
Asia was also present in force: HM The King of Jordan, Hussein, and his second wife, HRH Princess Muna, were accompanied by King Husseins young sister, Princess Basma. TM The King and Queen of Nepal, TM The King and Queen of Malaysia, HRH Prince Bhalubandutzagala of Thailand, Prince Abdul Vali Khan (uncle of HM The King of Afghanistan) and Prince Mikasa of Japan (brother of HIM Emperor Hirohito) were among the Asian royals present at the celebrations. In addition, the Sultan of Oman and the Emirs of Kuwait and Bahrein were equally present.
General Yahya Khan, the President of Pakistan, was accompanied by the Begum Aga Khan III during the celebrations. From neighbouring India came President Varahagiri Giri Venkata, while from China came the Vice-President of the National Assembly, Kuo Mo-jo. The President of Lebanon, Suleiman Franjieh, and the Prime Ministers of Yemen and Korea. President Marcos of the Philippines was represented by his wife, Imelda, and their daughter.
Above, Princess Sofia of Spain greets the Begum Aga Khan III, who wears an unidentified parure which might have been a loan for the event. Below, the Emperor of Ethiopia accompanies Empress Farah to the fireworks, while King Baudouin walks with his wife, Queen Fabiola.
From Africa came HIM The Emperor of Ethiopia, Hail� Selassi�, and HM The King of Lesotho, King Moshoeshoe II, while King Hassan II of Morocco preferred to send his brother as his representative, and Prince Makhosini, Prime Minister of Swaziland, represented his sovereign. Other heads of state from Africa present were Hubert Maga, President of Dahomey (later Benin), Leopold Senghor, President of Senegal, Moktar Ould Daddah, President of Mauritania, and Jacobus Fouch�, President of South Africa. The Prime Minister of Algeria was also present, while the Tunisian President sent a special representative.
From the United States of America, President Nixon sent his Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, to represent him, while from Canada the Governor-General Roland Michener attended. Petronio Portela, President of the Brazilian Government, represented Brazil. Finally, the Governor-General of Australia, Sir Paul Hasluck, represented his country.
On the left, King Hussein of Jordan walks with Queen Fabiola to the Banqueting Hall for the state banquet. In the centre, King Constantine II and Queen Anne-Marie in the Tent of Honour, before the banquet. On the left, King Hussein is pictured with his young sister, Princess Basma of Jordan.
Persepolis Main Page