Once a costumed superhero, and once a private investigator, Jessica Jones now works for the Daily Bugle, sourcing and following-up on stories concerning superheroes. As seen in Alias, she's not always been the most centred of individuals, and as seen in In Thin Air, her life appears to be heading for better times. She has a regular pay cheque, a baby on the way and a solid relationship with Luke Cage. Then she returns home one night to a massive, but very controlled explosion that destroys their apartment and leaves Cage in critical condition.
This initiates a clever reversal of Cage's strengths that writer Brian Michael Bendis would later reprise in the Avengers, with Cage's steel hard skin preventing effective medical treatment. When he disappears from the hospital, Jessica is left alone and distraught. She's learned that Cage accompanied other superheroes on a mission that went wrong, and it's felt that Nick Fury, head of S.H.I.E.L.D. is to blame.
For those wanting to know more, that mission was detailed in Secret War, but while the details are absent, all necessary knowledge is supplied here. For all that, and despite the good portrayal of Jessica as a woman in anguish, this isn't as effective as In Thin Air. Bendis throws in some attempted manipulation of the media and various superheroes, and too few of them behave in a manner consistent with their established personalities. He even has Wolverine comment that he's not usually self-pitying. Captain America losing his temper and Iron Fist's refusing something late in the story are two further examples, there to provide tension at the cost of compromising character.
Then we have a problem with the verbiage. No-one in comics is as good as Bendis when it comes to naturalistic conversation, but, being aware of it, editors appear reluctant to tell him when to pull the plug. The middle section of Secret War is padded beyond belief.
Brent Anderson, then Michael Lark in particular provide art that's back to the gloom of Jessica's previous Alias series, both very good. The series concludes with Fear, and is also available in The Pulse: The Complete Collection.


text:
Ross.Bowden
Are New South Wales Workers complying with the Law? Feb 18, 2015 22:15:11 GMT -5 Roselyn T likes this
Post by Ross.Bowden on Feb 18, 2015 22:15:11 GMT -5
Under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 which came into effect on 15 June 2013, all people whether in paid or volunteer positions in NSW, Australia, who engage in child-related work are required to be registered before they can work with children.
The object of the Act is to protect children:
-	By not permitting certain persons to engage in child-related work, and
-	By requiring persons engaged in child-related work to have working with children check clearances.
Over the past two years the law has been strengthened considerably to include all persons in volunteer positions. A worker can go online and answer 3 simple questions to find that they now require a Working with Children Check (WWCC)
In relation to religious organisations/services , religious leaders such as ministers and pastors, were due to have a Working with Children check by 31 March 2014 and all other employees who are working with children by 31 March 2015. Religious organisations or services must register as an "employer". The Office of the Children's Guardian, responsible for administering the Act, has commenced their audit program. It is worth noting that the definition of an "employer" is very wide – it includes the normal "paid work" definition but also includes "a person who engages a worker to perform work as a volunteer for the person under an agreement (whether written or unwritten)."
Some key questions:
a.	Has the Head Worker in NSW (Clyde Mackay) registered his religious organisation as an "Employer" as required by the Act?;
b.	Has each worker in NSW who is "employed" as a volunteer by Clyde completed their application before 31 March 2014 and received their "Working with Children Check" clearance and number?;
c.	Has each new worker undertaken this Check and been given their WWCC number prior to commencing in the work?;
d.	Have workers who have failed to receive their clearance from the Children's Guardian of NSW been removed from their position?; and
e.	Does the Head Worker maintain a register of each worker's full name, date of birth and each worker's WWCC number as required by the Act and have they logged onto the Government website to verify these details?
Given it is NSW law, it is reasonable for a member of the church in NSW to ask one of their workers whether they are complying with the law in these areas and to ask the foregoing questions.
I am not a member so my interest is primarily on two fronts - I have relatives with children who are members of the church and as a NSW citizen it is important that we comply with the law in our state.
It should be noted that similar laws apply in other states of Australia although it does vary from state to state. No doubt, this will be made uniform post the current Royal Commission in Child Sexual Abuse.
Last Edit: Feb 18, 2015 22:19:10 GMT -5 by Ross.Bowden
Roselyn T
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 22, 2015 20:56:59 GMT -5
Great question Ross ! I wonder if the same applies for QLD ?
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 22, 2015 22:14:47 GMT -5
What work do workers do with children that would require such compliance?
Feb 22, 2015 22:33:58 GMT -5 Ross.Bowden said:
Feb 22, 2015 22:14:47 GMT -5 BobWilliston said:
Bob - the law is very broad which is an indication of the climate here in Australia where the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse has been going on for 18 months or so and is likely to continue for that long again.
See following link.
www.kidsguardian.nsw.gov.au/Working-with-children/Working-With-Children-Check/Who-needs-the-check
Basically, any religious minister is required to have the check (they are deemed to be in a role where they have influential access to children) and any lay worker who works with children (ie leader of a Youth Bible Study etc).
I read the list -- the only thing I see that might apply is religious services, but meetings aren't face-to-face activities with children. Does every other preacher in Australia have to register for this? Unless the workers have special meetings for children without their parents.
whyisitso
Are New South Wales Workers complying with the Law? Feb 22, 2015 23:39:26 GMT -5 via mobile Roselyn T likes this
Post by whyisitso on Feb 22, 2015 23:39:26 GMT -5
As has been done before (Jerome Frandle case) they skirt around the 'religious minister' tag.
So I wouldn't expect that Clyde would have this up to date!
They're not a 'religion' & they're not 'ministers' (they say)
We all know they're good at ducking & weaving....
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 23, 2015 0:00:05 GMT -5
Feb 22, 2015 23:39:26 GMT -5 whyisitso said:
But this law is not about the same thing. Jerome's case was about being required to report a crime. This law is about permission to work with children. They're not in the same law chapter. Even this law would not prevent situations that Jerome got in trouble for -- none of them were "working" with children.
Are New South Wales Workers complying with the Law? Feb 23, 2015 0:09:21 GMT -5 via mobile Roselyn T likes this
Post by whyisitso on Feb 23, 2015 0:09:21 GMT -5
Feb 23, 2015 0:00:05 GMT -5 BobWilliston said:
I'm just saying the similarity is in the name. He (or his lawyer) skirted around saying he was a religious minister....
Given the fact the workers are regularly around children (meetings, conventions, PEOPLES HOMES, etc etc) but not 'teaching' them as such im not sure this law applies.
What I'm saying is, if it comes down to a 'title' they will avoid admitting a title.
Are New South Wales Workers complying with the Law? Feb 23, 2015 0:37:49 GMT -5 SharonArnold and Roselyn T like this
Feb 23, 2015 0:09:21 GMT -5 whyisitso said:
I know what you mean. Interesting what happens when a worker needs to hire an attorney Good lessons for them on how the world turns when you have to answer to someone else.
Are New South Wales Workers complying with the Law? Feb 23, 2015 0:49:52 GMT -5 via mobile Roselyn T and redback like this
Feb 23, 2015 0:37:25 GMT -5 Ross.Bowden said:
In the NSW Act, the title is irrelevant, as is whether or not the person is paid or volunteer, as is whether the organisation is registered or not.
There is no skirting around this issue.
They may have taken legal advice on it by a "friendly" lawyer.
In due course, there are those who will check via Freedom of Information whether or the workers have registered their organisation as an "employer" and themselves as individuals. Potentially, elders in the church need to register as well.
If they are not registered I am sure Wings will be asking the Office of the Children's Guardian in NSW to audit the 2x2 church on this issue.
Fixit made a good post on another thread about workers getting on the front foot on things and making appropriate changes.
It is as obvious as the fingers on your hand that in due course, the role of the Office of Children's Guardian will be extended to ensure (as opposed to encourage which is currently the case) all organisations to adopt child-safe practices and procedures.
This law exists well ahead of the findings of the Royal Commission which will no doubt strengthen and unify state laws across Australia.
Workers need to treat the issue of child safety with the integrity and transparency it deserves.
Victoria is often held up as a state where there have been a number of problems. There are been a number of problems in NSW as well but only one worker (Noel Harvey) has been jailed over the issue. Others have avoided prosecution and have left the work. Everyone knows who they are so those in 2x2 authority need to get on the front foot on this issue to protect the most vulnerable - young kids who deserve better from their leaders.
That's good to know Ross.... Might be time they realized they're not above the law of the land...
The Act is designed to be quite broad. You can have a look here.
www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+51+2012+cd+0+N
The worker only needs to be in direct contact with children, which of course they are.
All ministers in all churches - denominational and non-denominational in Australia have registered - don't know about the 2x2's.
No doubt a check will be made on this under Freedom of Information Laws.
Potentially, the law also extends to elders who have children in their meetings. I know lay workers, youth leaders etc in our church have registered by the deadline of 31 March 2015.
Strange kind of law. But how do you say that workers are "employed"? You can't be employed if you can't be fired.
Does it matter tho if there is parental supervision or not?
This was my initial thought....
They will skirt around being called a 'religious minister' and also that they are not alone (which we know they are at times) with children.
Obviously they have been alone with children as there have been cases of sexual abuse so hopefully that excuse won't fly.
Anyway, if the law is all encompassing there hopefully won't be any loop holes.
Are New South Wales Workers complying with the Law? Feb 23, 2015 0:59:22 GMT -5 via mobile aussie22 and Roselyn T like this
Post by Mary on Feb 23, 2015 0:59:22 GMT -5
Has no worker been fired? Sometimes they call it resting - permanently.
Their role as minister brings them into direct contact with children. If they weren't workers they would not be staying in these homes. Staying in homes where there is often children is part of their job description.
Last Edit: Feb 23, 2015 1:00:16 GMT -5 by Mary
Are New South Wales Workers complying with the Law? Feb 23, 2015 1:02:11 GMT -5 via mobile
Feb 23, 2015 0:59:22 GMT -5 Mary said:
As I read it it is 'direct contact'
Supervised or unsupervised doesn't seem to matter?
So looks like there's no loop holes!
Yes, a worker has more direct contact with children than an average minister at a church. Far more.
As a case in point, I read a testimony a while ago of a older professing lady in NSW who said "As a little girl I would often sit on <name of worker's> knee and he would tell me bible stories, he used to call me his little girl."
I am not suggesting for a minute that anything inappropriate occurred but I think this would be similar in all our experiences - as kids we sat on many a worker's knee.
The level of access that a worker has in folk's homes is immense.
But any friend of the family has every bit as much access to the children, and they're exempt from this requirement.
Agree, but guess you practically can't have everyone in the community required to have Working with Children clearances.
I think the theory goes like this - people for years in institutions have attained roles of authority which has given them unfettered access to children. Systematic abuse has occurred hence the Australian Royal Abuse into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse - focused on institutions whether registered or not.
The law is focused on this area.
We also know that an amount of sexual abuse occurs by fathers, uncles etc. The law is not designed to cover this. Governments haven't gone down the road of requiring for example uncles to have a working with children clearance before they can visit their relatives - who knows where the law will go in the future!
I agree with you on what the logic of the law was -- I just don't think it was designed with the 2x2 style of ministry in mind.
But by the language in the law, I see no reason why any of the friends could not ask a worker to register.
Another question I would ask -- what is the penalty for a worker not registering?
Post by partaker on Feb 23, 2015 5:22:28 GMT -5
This would need to be clarified in order to close up any loop holes or misunderstanding.
Last Edit: Feb 23, 2015 5:24:56 GMT -5 by partaker
Are New South Wales Workers complying with the Law? Feb 23, 2015 6:44:59 GMT -5 snow and redback like this
I should add that I am a real supporter of the current laws - not because of anything to do with my 2x2 heritage (!!) but because many institutions who have had unfettered access to children have been serial abusers for many years.
On the 2x2 front, it concerns me that Head Workers in Australia have reportedly had conversations about not being deemed to be an organisation - presumably driven by a belief that they either should not need or do not need to comply with such laws.
It saddens me that an organisation that I was involved in for many years, who calls itself "The Truth" would hold this view - a more enlightened view would be that they should not just comply with the law but put in place even higher standards than just the minimum required by the law.
In another thread on Conventions gems this relevant quote is made by a worker "We can be 99.99% resigned to God's will, but the 0.01% can ruin it all".
Where child safety is concerned, why does the 2x2 organisation and Head Workers consider that maintaining 0%, rather than striving for 100%, is adequate.
My observations are that many religeous organisation adopt the notion that they are in the world but not of the world, so worldly matters such as these take a low priority, but Jesus said that we should reder unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. Well as I see it, the laws of the land are Caesars concern and moral Behaviour is God's concern, so whether we are "not of the world" but "in the world" we are obliged to obey God's laws and also obey and acknowledge/ comply with,the laws the land(world)- caesar's terretory.
if we are late for a meeting/church service I dont think that God would approve if we seriously break the speed limit to get there on time and in so doing be involved in an accident that results in the death of someone. Breaking the speed limit means breaking Caesar's law.
Post by bubbles on Feb 23, 2015 7:11:19 GMT -5
Church leaders. Having the privelege of staying in the friends homes where children live.
Last Edit: Feb 23, 2015 7:13:51 GMT -5 by bubbles
Feb 23, 2015 5:22:28 GMT -5 @partaker said:
There is no clarification required under the legislation - all ministers of a religious service or organisation are automatically deemed by the legislation to be in child related work and therefore must obtain certification.
The workers may argue that they are not a religious service or organisation but under the legislation this would be futile and in any case dishonest.
The next argument may be that the 2x2 church does not employ its workers but the legislation has been extended to cover all volunteer workers, whether in paid employment or not.
The legislation has been drafted to cover all types of institutions - whether formally registered or not or whether they have paid or volunteer workers.
Ok, that would seem fair and reasonable to me.
Are New South Wales Workers complying with the Law? Feb 23, 2015 18:22:29 GMT -5 snow likes this
Post by kittens on Feb 23, 2015 18:22:29 GMT -5
Last Edit: Jul 18, 2018 19:35:58 GMT -5 by kittens
Are New South Wales Workers complying with the Law? Feb 23, 2015 20:22:11 GMT -5 redback likes this
Post by snow on Feb 23, 2015 20:22:11 GMT -5
Feb 23, 2015 18:22:29 GMT -5 kittens said:
I agree all the workers should comply with the law but as none of them have been prosecuted they would all pass the working with children check and keep doing what they were doing before. I was threatened that if I 'exposed' anyone I would be sorry. I don't think I have the strength to get up in court and relive all the details. There are probably a lot of people in my situation so the working with children check card is not worth the paper it is written on.
Thanks Kittens - no need to worry.
There are many people out there who will follow-up whether a worker has a clearance, whether the group is registered etc.
If they are not, then they are liable to be prosecuted - not by any of us but by the State after they have conducted an audit.
I think you've missed the point though. If the members who have been abused by the workers are not going to feel safe enough to come forward and report the workers and go through a court case, it doesn't matter if they have that piece of paper or not. A fine for not having it maybe, but still they will go free if they are abusers and it isn't reported. And, I totally understand where kittens is coming from about not "having the strength to get up in court and relive the details". The people who have been abused and then threatened have had their self worth and esteem broken out of them to the point where it is dreadfully hard to overcome that. I know because I couldn't face my rapist in court knowing what I would go through. I wish now I had the courage and stamina to do that, but then I just couldn't face it. All the laws and paper in the world won't change much if people can't feel safe enough or strong enough to report it in the first place.
In the end there will only be three things that matter. How much you loved, how gently you lived, and how gracefully you let go of the things not meant for you. The Buddha
Morality comes not from a book, or a guy up in the sky, but from the idea that how you treat people matters, because how people feel matters. Unknown.
Feb 23, 2015 20:22:11 GMT -5 snow said:
Thanks Snow - agree with you and Kittens the piece of paper are two separate, albeit related, matters.Let me explain.
The Working with Children clearance system is designed to protect children:
Agree that if a person is never reported and never convicted they will easily get the clearance and go on "their merry way".
This Act just places a little more pressure on workers to comply with the changing law.
However, it will not stop abuse. It will not help victims report workers and go through a court case - this is an incredibly difficult issue and heart goes out to people in this situation.
However, if a worker is reported/convicted and they (and other workers in NSW) have simply flouted the Working with Children system then I wouldn't like to be in the local Head Worker's shoes. Not only would the organisation be fined but all the workers in the state could be imprisoned for flaunting the law and of course the worker convicted for CSA crimes would have significant additional penalties.
I agree with you that every little bit helps. It's just sad that the population that needs to come forward are usually the ones that have been beaten down and just don't have the energy to face more. The survivor of CSA or rape is under investigation, tested, questioned and in a way having to relive it. They also can make you feel like you asked for it, though that should never be the case when a child is involved. There are no easy answers. It's easy to say 'report it' when you are not the one that has to face what that means in the system.
ROSS!!!!The organisation that claims to be nameless (oops Christian Conventions,etc) are the greatest straw splitters? Will try and argue around truth of responsabilities,law and honest resonable law requirements. We all know that a State Elder was with and supported a worker appeal his lousy 6 months sentence,knowing the police were not able to reveal another 12!!! known victims of that workers criminal CSA acts. Vic/Tas now have the tightened laws--knowingly "NOT' reporting deviant sexual criminal crimes against children is a jailable offence? Who will fill all the vacancies that may come out of this?And people are still trying to keep out their group as alien to legal discription. "Influence on children in meetings and home environments is a simple inclusive discription for any teacher of a theological interpretation. Thanks Ross. As you know I am ex victam and I am in my 8th decade. That is my 75 years knowing coverups. GOOD ON YOU NSW G'OVT,GIVE "EM THE ULTIMATUM THEY MUST REGISTER,CHECK ALL THOROUGHLY ASAP,(mmm WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF HERE?) VICTORIA HAS A COUPLE OF REGISTERED NAMES THEY CAN LEND THEM UP THERE.
I agree - I know a girl who anguished for years before reporting it (her two sisters who had been abused did not want to report) but eventually the time came when they collectively went to the policy - the father got many years in jail. The extremely sad part (and it was in the mid to late 1990's) was that the girl who initially wanted to report went to the local senior worker (who is now a Head Worker in an Australian state) and told her and his advice was "whatever you do don't go to the police". Thankfully, she ultimately ignored him. When my wife met with her to support her the trauma of the whole situation wracked her body. The abuse started at around 4 and went to around 13 and involved other men in the local community, including at least one professing man who also ultimately did time.
I'm glad that they ultimately did get justice and hopefully from that, some healing. It's hard to believe that the leaders of a group that ironically calls itself the Truth, doesn't actually see the need to report these people. I am sure some of the leaders do, but the ones that don't, I just don't understand their thinking.
Do you know if you have only one child in your congregation,and you preach an interpretation of scripture in mission.sermon,testamony,prayer,sunday fellowship gatherings,etc, you must have a "Working with children check" in our State I have one to take reading at a grandsons school. "Because you are influencing the childs mind,teaching a one religion or lifestyle. So every preacher,meeting,church speaker,etc, must have one or only have adult only meetings. You are influencing them with a doctrine-Christianity.
Do you know if you have only one child in your congregation,and you preach an interpretation of scripture in mission.sermon,testamony,prayer,sunday fellowship gatherings,etc, you must have a "Working with children check" in our State
I have one to take reading at a grandsons school.
"Because you are influencing the childs mind,teaching a one religion or lifestyle.
So every preacher,meeting,church speaker,etc, must have one or only have adult only meetings.
You are influencing them with a doctrine-Christianity.
I think that you may have misunderstood the "Working with children check."
A Working With Children Check is a requirement for people who work or volunteer in child-related work.
It involves a national criminal history check and a review of findings of workplace misconduct.
It is for people who like yourself work with children in a school setting.
Tutors, etc.
I don't think that it applies to every church where the children were just a part of the church group and not just exclusively children who were being spoken to.
Preaching=teaching!!!! Ephesians 4,V,11-12.Church instructions given are pretty specific. Praying aloud=a promotion of "A"God. Maggie.
P.S. If you pray to a Christian God you are obliged to allow as much time to others Gods. Workers,prayers and speakers in any meeting expressing a doctrine,children present,check it out? Remember,today, our intellectual educators from Universities down,in which a large percentage promote atheism or equal time to all"GODS". They educate our extreme left policy makers,and you can't beat them,unless you can find one of the minority of right wing just Judges thats left.
Post by searcher on Feb 12, 2017 8:52:16 GMT -5
Funny how God's Truth and Way that all hinges on the only true ministers, (called by God himself) suddenly tries to become invisible when accountability shows up.
Jerome Frandle tried to deny that he was ordained. Did he stand up in court and proclaim that he was part of the one and only true ministry? No. He denied it all by claiming that he wasn't "ordained". The court was not blinded by the smoke screen.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


As the House knows, Lord Shackleton, at the Government's request, produced and published in September an updated version of his 1976 report on the economy of the Falkland Islands. We are enormously grateful to Lord Shackleton and his team for their work.
In considering the report's recommendations, we have been guided by the need to assure the economic future of the islands through a development programme, while at the same time preserving the islanders' way of life as far as possible. The report has been discussed with the Civil Commissioner, with the island councillors, amongst the islanders generally and with other interested parties. Their views have been carefully taken into account.
The Government agree with the broad conclusions of Lord Shackleton's report and are ready to support action by the Falkland Islands Government in the following major areas covered by his recommendations: —A Falkland Islands Development Agency should be established. This would be provided with funds to buy land on the open market, and to divide it into smaller holdings. It would also have powers to make loans and grants towards the cost of a number of small-scale development projects. —The islands' agricultural research centre, the Grasslands Trials Unit should be expanded; —there should be a feasibility study on an improved harbour complex, including a new deep-water jetty; —the Stanley-Darwin road should be completed and the existing network of tracks should be improved; —a pilot scheme for salmon-ranching and a survey of shellfish resources should be established; hotel and guest house facilities upgraded; and cottage industry skills developed. Although they were not specifically covered in Lord Shackleton's report, we believe that urgent action should also be taken to improve the water supply and sewerage system in Port Stanley, and to study the requirements for future electricity generation and distribution, and the telephone system in the islands.
The following proposals made by Lord Shackleton in our view require further study: —Exploratory offshore fishing and the establishment of a 200-mile fisheries limit: the implications of such a limit, not least its policing, and the degree of commercial interest in fishing need to be carefully assessed. —Expansion of tourism: this will depend to a large extent on the establishment of commercial air links. We are not convinced by Lord Shackleton's proposal for the wholesale transfer and sub-division of absentee-owned farms. We believe that this is inappropriate and consider a gradual approach to land redistribution under the auspices of the Falkland Islands Development Agency more in keeping with the capacity of the islands' existing agricultural population and more consistent with realistic immigration prospects. We are also not convinced of the need for a major expansion of the road network and are looking at more cost-effective ways of improving transport within the islands, in particular by improving the existing network of roads and tracks.
Lord Shackleton proposed expenditure of between £30 million and £35 million. My tentative estimate is that the programme that I have outlined would cost about £31 million over six years. The Government also propose to make available a further £5 million for civilian rehabilitation, in addition to the £10 million announced in July.
852 The islands' economy will inevitably be affected by the presence of a sizeable military garrison there, and by the outcome of the Government's present studies into the feasibility and cost of establishing a better airfield on the islands.
I should also remind the House that the economic future of the islands does not depend on the Government alone. There will be continuing scope for private sector investment and involvement which I hope will be encouraged by the commitment that we are making to the islands' future. We expect that Government and private investment together will lead to the creation of new jobs.
We have restored the freedom of the Falkland Islanders and shall continue to do what is necessary to guarantee their future security. As Lord Shackleton has reminded us in both of his studies, the economic development of the islands will ultimately depend upon the degree of local commitment to the future of the islands. For our part, we shall do all that we can to enable the islanders to look forward to a sound economic future and a worthwhile life. Our positive response to Lord Shackleton's report demonstrates our commitment to this.
Has this meagre response to Lord Shackleton's proposals secured the assent of the Falkland Islanders whom the Foreign Secretary says he has consulted? Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he has rejected Lord Shackleton's absolutely central proposal for the transfer of absentee-owned land to the islanders? How can he argue that the agricultural capacity of the population is inadequate when the present population is now farming the absentee-owned land? The question is whether one gives them some incentive to farm more efficiently which does not exist under the existing system.
Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted Lord Shackleton's view that there is no sense in expanding the airfield unless there are friendly airfields on the Latin American mainland from which traffic can operate?
What scope does the right hon. Gentleman see for private sector investment against the present background? The Minister said the other day that he hoped that some private entrepreneur would establish a fish and chip shop—or was it a unisex haircutting establishment? Does he really think that his proposals provide any incentive for private sector investment from Britain? Does not his statement expose the heroic postures of the Prime Minister about the Falklands as cynical vote catching? Does not his statement also reveal that the economic development: of the Falklands depends on friendly relations with the mainland?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm diplomatic correspondents' reports, which appeared with interesting unanimity in the press recently, that the Foreign Office rejects the Prime Minister's view that no negotiations can take place with Argentina before or after the next general election?
Mr. Pym: The Shackleton report was delivered in the Falkland Islands on the day that it was published here. It received careful consideration in the way that I described in my statement. The Minister of State naturally discussed it with the islanders when he was there. We certainly have taken full account of what they said.
Islander opinion, which has been consulted on the important matter of land redistribution, is unpersuaded of 853 the advantages of wholesale sub-division in the way proposed in the Shackleton report. Our approach is gradualist. We shall start on a small scale and then see what develops. That is a sound way to approach the matter.
As to the airfield, it is not a question of a decision not yet having been reached, because the airfield facilities must be improved. A feasibility study is in progress and in due course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will inform the House of his conclusions.
With the sizeable garrison on the islands, there is already scope for private sector investment. Interest has already been expressed in the fishing possibilities and in mutton processing. That is happening, although Lord Shackleton and his team were not optimistic about it.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that since the end of the conflict we have done everything that we can to reestablish friendly relations with the mainland and especially to normalise our relations with Argentina. We have achieved progress on the financial side, but we have not yet been able to obtain the lifting of the economic sanctions. However, the United Kingdom and other Community members made a joint approach to Argentina. That approach did not get an encouraging response, but we hope that in the long run—the sooner the better—proper relations will be restored, because that is of real interest and importance to the Falkland Islanders. We are doing our best to achieve that.
The Secretary of State did not comment on my point that Lord Shackleton' s report stated that the case for an airfield rests crucially on the readiness of neighbouring countries on the mainland to make available airfields for British aircraft and to send their aircraft to the islands. Has any progress been made in that respect, and does the Secretary of State accept Lord Shackleton's judgment on the case for an airfield? The right hon. Gentleman did not comment on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing of diplomatic correspondents to the effect that it disagreed with the Prime Minister's view on negotiations with Argentina.
"Negotiations" is not an appropriate term because, first, formal hostilities have not been ended and, secondly, even with the help and support of our European friends, Argentina is not prepared to lift economic sanctions. We have a long way to go before we reach that position.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that air communications should be as easy and as cheap as possible. That means facilities on the mainland. We would welcome now the establishment of a regular commercial air service, but there are obvious difficulties in the aftermath of the fighting. There is no immediate prospect of establishing such a service, but we hope to do so in due course and with the minimum of delay.
Will the Secretary of State make it clear that when formal hostilities are ended and economic sanctions have been lifted the Government will be prepared to enter into discussions, without pre-emption on either side, about the long-term future of the Falkland Islands? Nothing would give greater security to the islanders than such a clear declaration.
Both during the conflict and subsequently I have said to the House constantly that it must be in the islanders' long-term interests to restore good relations with the mainland. The right hon. Gentleman postulates a hypothetical position on which I shall not comment, except to say that he knows that I have an open mind about how we can make progress in the way that he describes that will benefit the present islanders and future generations.
Would it not be desirable for an airfield to be constructed so that, as far as possible, it could stand by itself without help from the mainland? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that for many generations, when there were no aircraft, communication by sea was perfectly satisfactory?
Yes; but, if one is to encourage the development of tourism, it must be made easier to reach the islands. Whether or not we can establish commercial air services with the mainland soon, we need better airfield facilities on the island, and the question is how that can best be provided. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will report to the House in due course.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Shackleton report states on page 28 that between £½ million and £1 million a year is sent back to Britain from the 10 land companies? Lord Shackleton's proposal publicly to own the land would staunch that flow. If the Secretary of State is worried about management problems, why cannot the new development authority take over the land and bit by bit—or gradually, as he said—transfer the land as and when it is appropriate? Would that not benefit the islanders, and would it not gain both national and international agreement?
The Government do not believe that to be the best approach, nor is it the general wish of the islanders.
Will my right hon. Friend make it clear whether the Government propose to proceed with the creation of a better all-weather airfield? That has always been the key—whether we are friendly with or negotiate with Argentina—to the eventual safety of the islands. We are talking about a feasibility study now, but, after the first Shackleton report, I and many hon. Members pressed many times for such a study and seven or eight years ago it would have cost only a few million pounds. Will the Government make it clear that they are determined to construct an all-weather airfield on the islands that is capable of reinforcement if need be?
What hard evidence is there that any South American Government on that continent will enter into serious negotiations about providing landing rights with a Prime Minister—not with the Secretary of State, because he had no part in the decision to sink the "General Belgrano"—who, in cool calculation, sank the "General Belgrano"? Why should South American Governments deal with such a leader?
Although it has not been possible to make progress in arranging a commercial air service involving a mainland airfield in any country, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a general desire in every Latin American country, with the exception of Argentina, not only to maintain but to improve their relations with Britain 855 and Europe. That is reciprocated by us. I hope that from that general desire will grow the possibility of establishing the airfield facilities that will be of great help to the islanders.
Bearing in mind that infirmity of will in this matter has been the curse of the Falkland Islands during the past 20 years, and recalling that Lord Shackleton recommended six years ago that an all-weather airport was crucial to the development of the islands and that he still says the same, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, feasibility study or not, it is the Government's firm intention not to keep the Falkland Islands dependent upon Argentina for its external communications for one moment longer? Will he assure the House that those air facilities will be provided and supplemented by adequate sea communication?
I thought that I had made it clear that the question is not whether we shall improve the airfield but the best way of achieving that objective. There are various ways of doing it and that is what is being studied. However, my hon. Friend's principle is conceded, and there will be an improvement.
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Lord Shackleton said that the prospects for any development in the Falkland Islands are gloomy unless a civil air link is established quickly? Will the Secretary of State confess that his officials have approached Chile, Uruguay and Brazil and that all those countries have said that there is no prospect of their granting landing rights to British aircraft? Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that?
—the arrangement that I have sought. However, that objective is clearly in the interests of the islanders, and we are doing our best to achieve it.
My right hon. Friend's proposals are both realistic and practical. Does he agree that the farmers of the Falkland Islands will welcome his policy of the gradual purchase of land through the Falkland Islands Development Agency, provided that it can start soon? Does he accept that money put into the Grasslands Trials Unit is money well spent?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is for the Falkland Islands Government to pursue the policies that I outlined, with our financial support, and we shall consult them. I have every reason to believe that they will make an early start.
Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, as Her Majesty's Government discovered where the Falklands were only after the invasion, hon. Members hope that no continuing commitment will be entered into until this House has discussed the matter in full? The Leader of the House failed to give me the assurance that I requested a week last Thursday that not a penny would be spent until this House had discussed the matter. In my opinion, the present discussion on this statement is totally inadequate to meet 856 the future commitments that we may face if the Government go off on a tangent without consulting the House on the implications of future commitments.
It is not reasonable to describe my statement and the provision that it outlines as unreasonable and inadequate. In total, it is a sum within the bracket suggested by the Shackleton report. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has heard what the hon. Gentleman said about a debate, and that of course is a matter for him.
Do not the local commitment and the private investment which my right hon. Friend rightly seeks depend on confidence at home and in the Falkland Islands that the British will to defend British sovereignty in the Falklands will be maintained? In view of my right hon. Friend's exchange with the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), is my right hon. Friend aware that the nation will not tolerate a return to the shilly-shallying, ambivalent conversations that took place over the years on the question of sovereignty?
My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that private investment depends on confidence. I hope that he will agree that my statement and the contribution that the Government are making, as outlined in the statement, about economic development are strongly in the direction of that confidence.
On the security of the islands, we shall of course do whatever is necessary, as we are now doing, to secure the safety of the people there. The question of sovereignty does not arise.
Will the Foreign Secretary answer the following points? Will the £31 million plus £5 million that he announced come out of the budget of the Overseas Development Administration? Does his announcement about the development agency and his attitude to the private sale of land mean that Government money will subsidise the infrastructure from which Coalite and other private owners can make further profit? Given the long-term problems of resolving the diplomatic questions concerning the Falklands, has he, before he made this statement, had any discussions with the United Nations Secretary-General, because clearly United Nations trusteeship is a possible future solution?
In answer to the right hon. Lady's first question, the new aid for the Falklands will be financed mainly from additional funds. No existing commitments will be cut to pay for it.
In answer to the right hon. Lady's question about infrastructure, what I announced today goes further in that direction than the Shackleton report recommends. In our view, it is important for the development of the islands, and the islands and the islanders will benefit from it.
In answer to the right hon. Lady's last question, I am commenting on the report by Lord Shackleton and his team, and in my view no question of United Nations consultation arises.
Does my right hon. Friend, as a former Secretary of State for Defence, agree that as long as the air defence of the islands depends on a single runway on a single airfield we shall be in an exposed position in defending the Falkland Islands from a large 857 scale air attack? Will he confirm that the Government are determined to find a location for developing a second airport?
That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. There will be opportunities in due course for my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) to question my right hon. Friend on that matter.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much the sums he has announced represent per capita in investment on the Falkland Islanders, who have been facing tremendous problems, and what it would mean if the same investment were made in areas in the United Kingdom where unemployment is, say, over 10 per cent., so that we could then gauge the value of the Government's consideration for the Falkland Islanders and for the unemployed, say, in Hull? Would it not be important for the Government to announce at this stage the building of cold store facilities in the Falklands as the first requirement in the proper maintenance and supply of mutton to the Services there, and as a prerequisite for fishing interests in the deep waters, as the right hon. Gentleman described?
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is £17,000. The comparison that he makes is nonsensical, and it does not help in any way. One recalls the bridge that was built in certain circumstances which cost a lot of money which might with advantage have benefited the unemployed in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The cold store could well come in due course, if the development of the islands takes place in a way that makes that sensible. I have said that some private investment sources are interested in the possibility of mutton processing, and if the fishing possibilities are explored there may be further reason for a cold store. However, it is too soon to judge.
Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, he said nothing about the mineral resources or about the important problem of population introduction from Great Britain to the Falkland Islands. In addition to the recommendations in the Shackleton report, which my right hon. Friend suggested for agriculture and farming projects there, as the House last night approved an increase in the Commonwealth Development Corporation allocation from a £500 million ceiling rate to £850 million, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the CDC will be involved there in a meaningful way?
I agree that the resources in and around the islands are capable of exploration and, possible, development. As I said in my statement, we do not think that the stage has been reached in some cases where it is either sensible or right to put in Government money. However, they could be further explored, and if the prospect seems more promising than it does now further money can be found from private sources and, possibly, public sources. However, that remains to be seen.
Population increase, again, is desirable in many ways, but it depends on how the plan and the economic development of the islands go. If they are successful, 858 clearly there would be an increase. Otherwise, the only increase may be in the garrison. We must see how things go.
What my hon. Friend said about the Commonwealth Development Corporation is right, but, off the cuff, I cannot say whether it will be a contributor to the Falkland Islands' financial resources. The answer is probably "No", but I shall let my hon. Friend know.
Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members from either side, and then we shall move on to the main business.
As British naval and military forces brilliantly salvaged the politicians from their failures, is it not time to recognise that the Falkland Islands are a long-term and expensive liability, and that the sooner we come to terms with the realities and interests of South America the better?
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. Obviously, it was an expensive exercise and expedition. However, not only the House but the country supported our wish to drive back the aggressor and restore freedom to the islanders. No one says, or pretends, that it was a cheap exercise.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the French capacity to operate the island diversion scheme in getting long-haul civilian aircraft to land in the Austral Islands in the South Pacific can also be applied by us in the Falklands, in the context of a developed, or a new, runway?
That question is beyond my technical knowledge. I shall let my hon. Friend know the answer.
In view of the large increase in profits that was announced by the Coalite Company yesterday, will the Minister say how much of that profit will be reinvested in the Falkland Islands? If the money is not reinvested in the Falkland Islands, why should that company continue to own the land, or why should the people of this country invest in that area, when the company that owns it is not prepared to do the same?
It is not for me to say what the company's intentions are. What I am concerned about, and what I think the House is concerned about, is to do everything that we can to improve the economic future and environment in the islands. That is what the statement is about.
Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the developments that are to take place in the Falkland Islands are viable and profitable? Would it not be foolish to overload the Falkland islanders with many public investments, which the recurrent budget could not sustain? Will my right hon. Friend try to attract neighbouring countries and even Commonwealth countries to assist us in the development of the Falkland Islands in view of their strategic importance and control over the South American passage to the Pacific?
As I have announced in the statement, a considerable part of the resources that are allocated are for infrastructure, roads, agriculture and so on. Some is for the development of businesses of one kind or another. However, we must see how we go. If the future turns out 859 to be reasonably hopeful and confidence returns, I think that there will be increased scope for developing more business. The only way that we can proceed is to take a gradual approach.
How can the Foreign Secretary say that sovereignty does not arise today when the success or failure of the package that he has announced depends on that very matter? Can the Falkland islanders, or those who he thinks will put money into the private sector investment in the Falkland Islands, safely disregard the repeated calls by the President of the United States when he was in Latin America for the resumption of talks about the future of the Falkland Islands, which can end only in sovereignty passing to Argentina?
The House knows the British Government's position. I do not think that the House would expect me to take any other position. We are trying to make Argentina change its attitude. They were the people who invaded the islands. They were the people who did all the damage. They are the people who are not now prepared to restore normal relations. The change that we want to bring about is there. We are doing everything that we can to achieve it. As I said before—and it is true—in the meantime the question of sovereignty does not arise.
On the subject of land redistribution, in all the circumstances of this case would it not be a sensible interim measure for the Government to acquire the interests of Coalite Ltd. in the Falkland Islands?
We have not thought so.
Why is it acceptable for the Government to use public expenditure to regenerate the Falkland Islands economy but not the British economy. Now that total Government spending on the Falkland Islands is to amount to about £1 million for every Falkland islander, will the Government ask Lord Shackleton to assess the likely effects on the British economy if Galtieri were invited to invade 10 Downing Street?
The hon. Gentleman knows the extent of our national resources that are helping our economy and the people adversely affected by rising unemployment. He knows of our schemes for youth and so on. That was a wrong comparison to make. To do anything less than what we have proposed in the statement would not be in accordance with the wishes of the House.
Bearing in mind the fact that the report draws attention to the rich resources of krill off South Georgia, will my right hon. Friend include a pilot scheme in his proposals for offshore fishing to see whether those resources can be commercially exploited?
We want to see the possibilities of fishing explored much more widely. We are considering how best to do that. There should be further studies before we put any money into that venture. We hope that it will turn out to have good prospects, but that remains to be seen.
The Foreign Secretary rightly revealed the fact that he has been trying, though in vain so far, to establish air links with countries in Latin America other than Argentina. I am sure that he can confirm that the main obstacle to that is the Government's refusals to enter into any sort of discussion with the Argentine Government. As it was he who referred to obstacles to such talks, will he assure the House, as the Foreign Office appears to have assured diplomatic correspondents, that once the Argentine Government have ended sanctions and the formal state of war with Britain, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to enter into talks with Argentina without preconditions?
Let us consider that position when we get to it. What matters is the future of the islands, the islanders and the next generation. That is what we must consider. The fact that we have taken the line that we have over Argentina is not the reason why countries in Latin America so far have not been prepared to grant us air services. None of them has produced that as a reason. They are just reluctant at the moment to take that step for their own reasons. They have not identified that as a reason, nor have they said that if we did have discussions they would grant us such services.
The question of negotiations or anything of that kind does not arise at present, for the reasons that I have stated. We want to see a change of attitude by Argentina. That is of fundamental importance to the future of the islands. Even without that, in the meantime we are taking all necessary military steps to protect the islanders and taking economic steps here to make their prospects brighter.


"He did well to come to terms with them," continued Hopper, dropping his voice.
"I guess I'll go and shake hands with Mrs. Hopper," said Nan.
"He couldn't want anything that's cheaper to make," said Mrs. Hopper.
I stood as long as I could stagger to the hopper with grain.
It shook the saddle like a hopper; and the stirrup danced a jig.
By reaching out with my pole I could just flip the hopper into the water.
Lay out the pitch of the sides of the hopper on the outside of the end pieces.
Connect these lines on what will be the inside of the hopper.
As the concrete filled in the hopper was raised and the chute cut off.


text:
Yania Ferrales Monteagudo (born 28 July 1977) is a Cuban discus thrower.

Her personal best throw is 66.00 metres, achieved in February 2006 in Havana.

Personal bests
Discus throw: 66.00 –  La Habana, 10 February 2006

Achievements

External links

Sports reference biography
Tilastopaja biography
Picture of Yania Ferrales

References

1977 births
Living people
People from Morón, Cuba
Cuban female discus throwers
Athletes (track and field) at the 2004 Summer Olympics
Athletes (track and field) at the 2008 Summer Olympics
Athletes (track and field) at the 2003 Pan American Games
Athletes (track and field) at the 2007 Pan American Games
Olympic athletes of Cuba
Pan American Games medalists in athletics (track and field)
Pan American Games silver medalists for Cuba
Pan American Games bronze medalists for Cuba
Central American and Caribbean Games gold medalists for Cuba
Competitors at the 2006 Central American and Caribbean Games
Central American and Caribbean Games medalists in athletics
Medalists at the 2003 Pan American Games
Medalists at the 2007 Pan American Games
21st-century Cuban women

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


A DONEGAL businessman has accused a rival company of using interns as "slave labour" with no prospect of them ever being offered proper jobs at the end.
He spoke out after reading a European Parliament report which made the same claims this week.
"The people behind these schemes often mean well but some businesses which use them, abuse them and abuse the young people they are taking on," he claimed.
"I know one business which rivals my own. I pay proper wages to loyal staff.
"Now I find myself competing against someone who appears to have endless access to unpaid interns and trainees. He moves from one scheme to another and from one agency to the next.
"This allows him to undercut me in my business employing people on proper salaries and therefore endanger those full-time positions.
He added: "I know of other cases where trainees ended up doing jobs other than they were supposed to. They were offered the world and then chucked out the door at the end.
MEPs said this week that internships and traineeships should be carefully monitored to ensure that the system is not open to abuse.
A report approved by the European Parliament called for a quality framework to be set up for internships, as one of a series of measures to boost job creation.
Labour MEP Emer Costello said the practice of taking on young people to work unpaid for a period of time as a means of gaining professional experience is sometimes exploited by companies, who treat their interns as "slave labour".
"I've heard from young people who are on their fourth or fifth internship working for nothing, sometimes just doing a different job for the same company. That is never what the internship was set up to achieve," said Ms Costello.
MEPs pinpointed poor working conditions, little-or-no financial remuneration and the lack of a full time job upon completion of an internship as the basic problems with the internship system. They said interns should be given a minimum payment level and that their internship should be of limited duration.
"We need EU regulation so that internships are a social contract that mutually beneficial for both the employer and the trainee, allowing the young person to up skill and boost their job prospects," said the Labour MEP.
She suggested that Ireland's Job Bridge internship scheme could provide a model for other member states so that a consistent standard would be applied throughout the EU.


text:
Kylie Jenner's 'Rise and Shine' Merch, Remixes and More!
posted by Claudia Mendoza - Oct 19, 2019
'Rise and Shine' peeps!!
Kylie Jenner's viral video has creative minds around the world working on new material.
It all started with a YouTube video, where Kylie gave fans a tour of her Kylie Cosmetics HQ offices. In the video you can see pink furniture, a decked out kitchen and of course a playroom for Stormi. That's where the magic started. In the video Kylie says, "We're gonna wake Stormi up and get out of here, and show you guys her room." As she opens the door Kylie sings the now iconic "Rise and Shine."
The clip immediately went viral on social media and it's inspired people and celebrities to make their on videos and versions of the line. Ariana Grande shared her on her IG story and Miley Cyrus posted her take on Twitter.
There's even a chill hip-hop version available.
Tik Tok video makers aren't staying behind either.


Global Food at its best! Cheap, colorful, delicious! The hipster hood of London. I always go for the Japanese Okonomiyaki!
The Sunday UpMarket, the Vintage Market, the Backyard Market, the Tea Rooms and the Boiler House Food Hall are all located within the confines of the Old Truman Brewery on Brick Lane.


[ NECKLACE INFO ] 925 Stamped. 5mm Wide. Sizes 20" - 30". Weighs Approx. 2.8 grams per inch. Pure 925 Sterling Silver. Coated with Rhodium Plating for a Long Lasting Shine & Daily Wear Protection. Features a Box Lock Closure for safety and security. A Smooth Bottom allows for this Luxurious Piece to sit comfortably around your neck. Perfect for Men & Women. Gift Packaging Included - perfect for sending it as a gift!
[ BRILLIANT CUT STONES ] A Dazzling Sparkle at first glance. This sterling silver necklace feature an exquisite high polish finish. After receiving yours, you will simply be amazed by the Bright Shine from these Multi-Facet Cubic Zirconia stones. A 4-Prong Setting magnifies the beauty of the stone while safely securing it.


text:
How will you buy goods in 2022? Payment trends shaping the future of commerce
Pay now, pay later, pay by mobile, pay in instalments. Today, there are increasing numbers of ways for consumers to spend quickly and easily. And in the fast-paced world of payments technology, innovation is always just around the corner.
The industry is being shaped by the unabating demand for choice, value, and flexibility. To meet this demand, the industry is rapidly developing a host of new technologies, but three trends are leading the pack.
Buy now pay later (BNPL), contactless technology and a new generation of loyalty points-based payments, fuelled by emerging MarPay technology.
Buy now pay later: Giving consumers control over cash flow
The 'buy now, pay later model' has taken the world by storm over the last few years. Spreading worldwide and gaining ferocious popularity, buy now, pay later (BNPL) providers such as Klarna, Clearpay and Laybuy have made their mark on the checkout experience by creating a new category and changing the way people pay forever.
And it's no wonder why. The new generation BNPL models let people spread out costs and still get everything they want, when they want it – often with zero interest.
But there's an obvious challenge with this type of payment model. If repayments aren't managed correctly, consumers can get themselves into sticky situations and even problem debt.
As the threat of increased regulation looms across the UK and Europe, BNPL providers can no longer afford to ignore this issue.
Juniper Research predicted that by 2026, global spending via BNPL services will reach $995 billion (€881 billion), almost quadrupling the current figure.
Loylogic
Big names like Klarna, have strengthened affordability assessments in an effort to ensure that consumers aren't spending more than they can afford to pay back.
They've also shifted away from deferred payments - launching buy now, pay now options that reduce the risk of shoppers getting sucked into debt, but still offer flexibility at checkout.
But it's unlikely that regulation will be the nail in the coffin. It's just another factor to navigate and if there's one thing that these payment providers have proved over the years, it's that they have the ability to innovate at speed.
Some of the original BNPL providers like Klarna are evolving to broaden their offering beyond payments, and seeking to position themselves as a one-stop-shop for shopping.
Meanwhile, an ever-growing number of retailers continue to adopt BNPL at checkout. Recent data from Juniper Research predicted that by 2026, global spending via BNPL services will reach $995 billion (€881 billion), almost quadrupling the current figure.
At the same time, fintech firms, big tech players, card providers and online banks are all launching BNPL options, looking for a slice of the pie.
Buy more, pay less: Reduce cash flow and earn more points
The loyalty schemes of old are making way for a new generation of smarter solutions that offer a win-win-win for members, merchants, and loyalty programmes alike.
Long gone are the days where your hard-earned points translated to a £2 tester sample of lipstick. Reward points today can pack much more of a punch when combined with the right cutting-edge payment option.
Emerging "MarPay" technology is connecting the world's top online shops with loyalty programme members looking to maximise their spending power at checkout.
Traditionally, affiliate marketing-based offers provided by loyalty programmes can be tricky to navigate, fall short on tracking due to evolving privacy rules and are slow to register on points balances which can lead to disengaged consumers.
But new specialist 'MarPay' technology platforms can connect online merchants directly with loyalty programmes to make sure that consumers can spend and earn points instantly on each purchase.
This tech can work to either free up shoppers' points so people can buy more and pay less on their purchases – or allow consumers to earn points on their purchases, giving them the opportunity to top up their points balance as they spend.
Meanwhile, the merchant benefits by boosting average basket value and capturing a greater share of what consumers are willing to spend.
As consumers' spending power is increasingly squeezed by the rising cost of living across Europe, there will be a bigger and bigger role for BNPL payment options and 'MarPay' tech.
By allowing consumers to tap into alternative wallets of rewards points, this flexible new solution can make their hard-earned cash go a lot further.
As we move into 2022, we can expect to see more merchants adopting MarPay tech. As competition to win share of wallet ramps up, brands will be battling it out to unlock spending power and offer consumers even better value at checkout.
Contactless: Technology that changed the world
With just a wave of your debit card, your watch, or your phone, you can buy anything from a latte to a wardrobe. Contactless is king when it comes to easy, convenient payments in a world that won't wait for you to get out your wallet.
Though contactless technology is nothing new, the pandemic led consumers and banks to look for ways to reduce physical contact points.
This meant cash was ushered aside, while contactless technology was prioritised and new use cases quickly emerged.
Spending caps skyrocketed all across Europe – permitting people to make even bigger purchases without a pin. In the early days of the pandemic, France saw its cap lift from €30 to €50, while the UK limit rose from £30 to £45 and then more than doubled to £100 later on, in October 2021.
Contactless payments involving card readers are going nowhere in 2022, but the growing popularity of digital wallets means that no touch payment technology is increasingly popular in other contexts.
The proliferation of QR codes over recent years has opened up a new world of possibilities for contactless. The codes allow for instant payments simply by scanning on your phone, which means whether you're scrolling social media or browsing your favourite online store – virtual payments have never been faster.
And it works in real life too, where QR codes make for a cheaper alternative to chip and pins. In restaurants for example, it's possible to view a menu, scan the meal you want and pay for it in the same second.
Meanwhile, the use of QR codes in stores can help retailers create a seamless omnichannel experience by allowing consumers to scan an item and pay then and there on their phone without needing to wait in line for the till.
he decade of fully flexible payments
The common thread that holds together these payment trends is flexibility. And consumer demand for choice and flexible ways to pay will only continue to rise.
People have embraced – and now expect – payments methods that deliver great value, function instantly and make their lives easier.
From interest free instalments to the ability to seamlessly spend and earn loyalty points at checkout, the next few years will see the payments industry innovate to suit every type of shopper.
For consumers, the trick is keeping up with everything that's on offer.
_Dominic Hofer is the CEO of Loylogic and Pointspay, a loyalty and payments platform.
Original article: How will you buy goods in 2022? Payment trends shaping the future of commerce | Euronews