Reagor: Lockdowns Create Poverty

first_imgBy DAVID REAGORRepublican CandidateLos Alamos County CouncilOn Oct. 8, 2020 the UK envoy to the World Health Organization, Dr. David Nabarro, said that all Coronavirus lockdowns should end. In an interview with The Spectator magazine he said, “Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition.”In 9 months, political leaders have erased decades of progress reducing worldwide poverty. In the USA the disease has cost 200,000 lives and a total of 2 million life-years lost.  The lockdown has put almost 20 million people out of work. According to the CDC, a long-term bout of unemployment (>6months), takes a year off your life expectancy. A September article in the Revolver online magazine concludes that all the unemployment will lead to 8 million life-years lost due to the lockdown, far exceeding the public health effect of the disease and making little difference in the disease impact.  The lockdown fear campaigns contained failed predictions of the disease impact that were ten times worse than reality and this led to poor lockdown decisions.In Great Barrington, MA a group of prominent scientists gathered for a conference on the Coronavirus and issued a declaration that lockdowns are disastrous for the public.  The declaration states: They also conclude with the following recommendations: Six thousand scientists and doctors have already signed this declaration. It is just based on standard public health measures, not subjective opinions.On April 20, 2020 in the Los Alamos Daily Post I wrote:“The path forward is then clear: We just need to protect high-risk groups with voluntary self-isolation, and the economy can reopen. In fact, that was all we ever needed to do, but the results were not clear until now. Just open everything, stores, recreational facilities, restaurants, and services. Social distancing should still be used, and services that require a personal spacing less than six feet, such as dentists, beauty parlors, and barbers, should require appropriate protective equipment. People with COVID19 should still be quarantined to slow the rate of spread and prevent an overwhelming burden on the health care system. This restart is actually good for the high-risk groups, as ending the shutdown will build up immunity in the lower risk population and speed the end of their self-isolation. The whole shutdown was a mistake and now must be immediately ended.  If the governor does not act, then the county council should end it themselves.”Six months have passed since that opinion and it is clear now that all the experts have issued more eloquent versions of the same policy. The only holdouts are democratic party politicians: school boards that won’t open schools, local governments that won’t protect their local businesses, governors that use fear and emergency powers to confiscate your rights, and bunkered-up presidential candidates that are not as brave as our waitresses. They make no sense and harm workers for political purposes.  The time to act is well past and the state legislature needs leaders who will stand up to this Governor. Elect David Hampton to the State house and Diamante Storment to the State Senate. The only way to end the lockdown is through the ballot box.Editor’s note: Readers are encouraged to fact check statements made in letters and opinion pieces.last_img read more

HFT highlights MultiStrike electrodes

first_imgGet instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270. Subscribelast_img

UK: FloWave to Hold Doors Open Day

first_imgFlowave TT will welcome the public into their wave and tidal research facility for the first time. There will be a series of six visit opportunities during the annual ‘Doors Open Day’ day event on Saturday 28th September.Each tour will comprise a short presentation on the design, construction and operation of the test facility, as well as the opportunity to see the test tank for real. Places on each tour are limited and should be booked in advance through EventBrite at this link: https://edinburgh-university-210.eventbrite.co.uk.Since the test facility is still officially classified as a construction site, children under the age of 16 are not allowed to enter. For DOD 2014 facility will no longer be a construction site and will welcome children at that time.Flowave TT Ltd is a 100% owned subsidiary company of the University of Edinburgh, and through working closely with the Institute for Energy Systems, will rapidly become an internationally recognised expert in marine energy device testing and evaluation including array deployment, with its unique All-Waters Combined Current and Wave Test Facility in Edinburgh.[mappress]Press release, September 12, 2013; Image: bennettsassociateslast_img read more

Bankruptcy proceedings and debt collection

first_img District Judge Neil Hickman sits at Milton Keynes County Court. He is general editor of Civil Court Service (Jordans) In Everitt v Budhram [2010] Ch 1070, Mrs Budhram had been made bankrupt in 2006 for non-payment of £13,130 council tax. She paid the outstanding tax and the petitioning creditor’s costs, but steadfastly failed to engage with the trustee in bankruptcy, and ultimately in 2009, the trustee sought an order for sale of her home. Deputy District Judge Sommerville refused the order. He said: ‘I always have reservations about using bankruptcy proceedings as a means of debt collection.’ Mr Justice Henderson allowed the trustee’s appeal. He held that the circumstances of the original bankruptcy order could not be taken into account on an application for an order for sale, and drew attention to the well-known authority of Griffin v Wakefield BC [2000] RVR 226 in which the Court of Appeal held that as statute and regulations permitted a local authority to use bankruptcy proceedings to recover council tax debts, there could be no objection in principle to the council doing so. Does this mean that local authorities may confidently resort to bankruptcy proceedings as a routine method of debt collection? While plainly, as the appeal court held in Griffin, it is acceptable in principle for local authorities to use bankruptcy proceedings, there are good reasons for caution. Ford v Wolverhampton City Council [2008] BPIR 1304 is a decision of the Local Government Ombudsman. Mr Ford (not his real name) was bankrupted for failure – or refusal – to pay council tax of £1,105. By the time the ombudsman considered his case, the costs of the bankruptcy had reached some £38,000. Mr Ford insisted to the ombudsman, as he had to the council, that he did not owe £750 in council tax at the time of the order, but the ombudsman found that assertion to be groundless. And although Mr Ford might well have been entitled to council tax benefit, he had failed to co-operate with the claim process. However, the ombudsman considered that he was entitled to consider Mr Ford’s complaint even though court proceedings had ensued, because he was looking at the decision to take and pursue proceedings, rather than purporting to second-guess the court. He entertained the complaint even though it related to matters which had occurred more than a year previously. And he held that the council had not followed due process in making Mr Ford bankrupt; it had failed to give him adequate warning of the consequences of bankruptcy, and had failed properly to consider the alternative of seeking a charging order against Mr Ford’s home. The ombudsman found that had such failings not occurred, Mr Ford would have made an offer of repayment to the council prior to the commencement of proceedings. The consequences for the council were financially horrendous; it was recommended to pay for the annulment of Mr Ford’s bankruptcy, save for the £1,150 which he in fact owed. This decision was robustly applied by District Judge Gordon Ashton in Hunt v Fylde BC [2008] BPIR 1368. The unfortunate Mr Hunt suffered from Huntington’s disease and had as a result withdrawn from the world and adopted an aggressive response to any attempt to assist; a social worker who had attempted to discuss matters with him had simply been asked to leave. There is no suggestion that Fylde had actually known about Mr Hunt’s condition – but that, said District Judge Ashton, was not the point. The council’s evidence, he observed, ‘…conspicuously failed to advise the court of the procedures adopted by the council for making the discretionary decision that bankruptcy proceedings were appropriate. There is no indication that the council had any information about Mr Hunt before the issue of the petition or even sought such information.’ District Judge Ashton drew attention to rules 7.43 and 7.44 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, which deal with mental and physical disability. He held that the court could invoke these provisions on its own initiative, and went on to conclude that it was important that the court inquired as to whether Mr Hunt should have had a representative. If one had been appointed this might have ensured that the debt was paid or secured to the satisfaction of the petitioning creditor, perhaps involving an application to the Court of Protection, the bankruptcy proceedings being stayed for this purpose. He pointed out that the onus cannot lie on the debtor to establish lack of capacity, either mental or physical, because lack of capacity would itself render the debtor unable to do so. As Lord Justice Kennedy said in Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2002] EWCA Civ 1889, ‘… courts should always, as a matter of practice, at the first convenient opportunity, investigate the question of capacity whenever there is any reason to ­suspect that it may be absent (for example, significant head injury) …’ Annulling the bankruptcy order, District Judge Ashton pointedly invited Fylde to consider whether, in the light of the Wolverhampton case, it was appropriate to proceed. This, of course, is a decision of a district judge at first instance, but it is a decision of a judge to whose ‘unrivalled experience’ in this field the High Court in VAC v JAD & Ors [2010] EWHC 2159 (Ch) has recently paid warm tribute. The ombudsman took a similar approach in Re Exeter City Council [2009] BPIR 598, where the debtor was terminally ill and incapable of dealing with her affairs, though this is an unsurprising decision given that apparently the debtor had actually informed the council of her terminal illness in 2001. Once again, the council found itself paying the costs of the bankruptcy as the price of an annulment. This is going to be the normal situation – Butterworth v Souter [2000] BPIR 582. District Judge Ashton’s view in Hunt is consistent with the stance of the European Court of Human Rights in Zehentner v Austria [2009] ECHR 1119, a decision recently cited without disapproval by the Supreme Court in Pinnock v Manchester CC [2010] UKSC 45. Lonergan v Gedling BC [2009] EWCA Civ 1569 (an application for permission for a second appeal where Mr Justice Lewison had said that ‘the decision to present the petition was not on the facts an unreasonable one’) is distinguishable on its facts. The principal difficulty in Everitt was that the court got to grips with the issues so late in the day, after such a large bill in costs had been run up. The court has a discretion to ­dismiss a bankruptcy petition if the debtor secures the debt to the court’s satisfaction (section 271(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986), and surely a well-advised debtor will be willing to submit to a charging order. If the debtor attends the hearing of the petition (which Mrs Budhram did not) the court’s duty to put the parties on an equal footing may oblige the judge to suggest the idea to the parties.last_img read more

Dishonest dealings and tax

first_img David Kenyon-Vaughan, Canterbury I read an article in a Sunday newspaper entitled ‘Self-employed? Make extra money from the VAT rise’. I am perplexed because, while I understand that in the current economic climate it is good to have incentives for smaller businesses, this incentive appears to be, prima facie, dishonest. From my perspective as a lawyer, I do not understand how our profession can tolerate a scheme that encourages us to profit from clients by making a charge for tax that is not payable. To draw an analogy with the recent parliamentary expenses scandal, I would comment: ‘Just because something is permitted or allowed, that does not make it right.’ I do not wish to put lawyers on a ‘high horse’; this must be true for other professions as well. For example, how does this approach work under one of the fundamental principles of the Financial Services Authority, namely ‘treating customers fairly’?Trust me, I am a lawyer (but I will secretly charge you an extra 5.5%).last_img read more

My digital life: Miles Freeman

first_imgGet your free guest access  SIGN UP TODAY Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Subscribe now for unlimited accesslast_img read more

Wake-up call on the Betuwe Route

first_imgALTHOUGH work is under way, the 9·5bn guilders project to build a high capacity freight railway from Rotterdam to the German frontier appears to have turned sour. The financial press pointed out in June that discussions with 74 companies had failed to produce one willing to invest – not even Railion. But when one considers what is planned at Barendrecht, it is less surprising.Tracks through this station are being increased from four to nine to accommodate both the Betuwe Route and HSL-Zuid. To cut noise, a 1·5 km artificial ’tunnel’ is to be constructed over the whole lot, including a glazed wall along the platforms. But the safety precautions for this 8m high monstrosity outclass an Alpine base tunnel. The heat resistant structure must contain an explosive force of 100 kN/m2, with sprinklers, forced ventilation and emergency exits every 63m.Given the extreme improbability of a freight train exploding at this precise point on its 160 km journey, it is clear that no rational assessment of risks has been carried out. Yet Dutch journalists are apparently being told by transport ministry officials that traffic projections were ’hopelessly optimistic’ and the line would be a ’white elephant’. The word, off the record, is that before tracklaying contracts are signed next year, the ministry is to consider running ’guided lorries’ over the route.Now it just happens that Nicholas van de Laar, President of Buiscar, has been peddling his ideas for putting road trains of up to five trailers (which his firm makes for use inside container terminals) on the public highway. Van de Laar wants the government to allocate one motorway lane in each direction for 2 h each night for a convoy running nose to tail. His vision is of 740000 TEU a year (over 100 ’trains’ a night each way) trundling at 50 km/h along the A15 to the border four years before the rail link is finished.Since these rigs would be 100m long, with 15 tonne axleloads and a gross weight around 160 tonnes – and one could not complete the trip inside 2 h, let alone 100 – officials may be hesitant to put the idea to Mrs Netelenbos. But why not use the Betuwe Route 24 h a day? Think of the savings! No timetables, signalling or ATP (p468), and best of all, when a driver nods off and crashes the media won’t even report it.No, it’s not likely to happen. But the fact that civil servants could even consider it seriously should be a wake-up call to Europe’s rail managers. The barriers to open access and cost-effective operation across frontiers have got to come down now; tomorrow may be too late.last_img read more

Modular shunter launch

first_img Railway Gazette International is the official international media partner of InnoTrans. Meet the team at Stand 221 in Hall 1.2 INNOTRANS: Making its debut at InnoTrans, the G6 diesel-hydraulic shunting loco is the first model in a new range of modular designs being developed by Vossloh Locomotives. Powered by a 650 kW engine, the three-axle centre-cab G6 has a tractive effort of around 194 kN, making it one of the most powerful locos in the shunting and industrial locomotive market. With a top speed of 80 km/h, it is designed to negotiate curves as tight as 50 m radius, with a steering mechanism, to minimise rail and wheel wear. From 2010, Vossloh plans to add three types of four-axle locomotive to the range, which is primarily targeted at mines, ports and factories. All models in the new range will comply with the latest EU standards on exhaust emissions, noise protection and crashworthiness, which come into force from 2012.Vossloh España is again showing its Euro4000, which was launched at InnoTrans 2006. Powered by a 16-cylinder EMD engine, Europe’s most powerful diesel-electric locomotive is rated at 3 178 kW. With a fuel tank capacity of 7?000 litres, it can run for up to 2 000 km without stopping. The Euro 4000 has attracted a lot of interest since its launch, with orders placed for 45 locomotives so far. The loco has now been certified for operation in Spain, and the approvals process is underway in several other countries, including Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, France, Sweden and Norway.last_img read more

New York City helps Caribbean in hurricane relief efforts

first_img“I will also be speaking to the issue of Climate Change,” Browne said. “We recognize that in some quarters they are arguing against the issue of climate change.“We are the ones who are suffering the consequences of climate change here in the Caribbean,” he added. “I want to ensure that I am one of the major advocates on the issue of climate change.”Browne said his intention is to work with individuals, such as former US Vice President Al Gore and others, to become “more integrally involved” in advancing the arguments in favor of climate change,” according to an Antigua and Barbuda government statement. Left for Puerto RicoAccording to Mayor Bill de Blasio, 27 members of the NYPD and the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) left for Puerto Rico and elsewhere in the region assist in the recovery efforts. The members of the NYPD and FDNY, including medics and disaster relief professionals, make up the city’s Urban Search and Rescue team. PM Gaston Brown to address climate change Meanwhile, Prime Minister Gaston Browne of Antigua and Barbuda was expected to focus the world’s attention on climate change and its effects on the Caribbean when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly Thursday evening. Before departing Antigua on Wednesday, Browne said his primary objective is to speak about the devastation of the sister isle of Barbuda, ravaged by Hurricane Irma and rally the support of the international community for the island. New York City will be helping the victims of Hurricane Maria across the Caribbean by sending 27 members of the New York Police Department (NYPD) and the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) to assist in the recovery efforts. FEMA can be deployedThere are 28 Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) Urban Search and Rescue teams strategically located throughout the United States, which can also be deployed to the region within six hours of activation.last_img read more

DHTA recognizes corporate partners

first_img 80 Views   no discussions Share Tweet Share BusinessLocalNews DHTA recognizes corporate partners by: Dominica Vibes News – July 29, 2016center_img Share Sharing is caring! Immediate past president of DHTA Gregor NassiefThe Dominica Hotel and Tourism Association (DHTA) recognized its corporate partners at their annual general meeting’s open session on Thursday July 29, 2016.For the year 2015/2016 the DHTA had eleven corporate partners who contributed monthly to the association.These are platinum sponsor Digicel; gold sponsors, Ross University School of Medicine, CGM Gallagher Insurance Brokers, National Bank of Dominica Limited and silver level sponsors Archipelago Trading, Belfast Estate, AID Bank, DBIZ, CIBC First Caribbean Bank, EMS Limited and Island Car Rentals.They were gifted by DHTA members Secret Bay, Beau Rive, Liberty Jungle, Castle Comfort Lodge, Fort Young Hotel, the Champs.Immediate past president of the association Gregor Nassief expressed thanks to the sponsors saying without them the financial foundation to build an effective institution could not have been laid.The DHTA he revealed approached the corporate sponsors with what he described as an unusual request.“We wanted a monthly subsidy for the association to run with no real payback in terms of advertising or PR and we basically said invest in us we will help build a vibrant tourism industry and the benefit of that will come to all of us.”These eleven sponsors he said signed on.“I hope that you see that your sponsorship is being used effectively and that we are in fact on the right path.”Executive Vice President of the DHTA Stephanie Astaphan also expressed thanks to the sponsors for their monthly contributions.These she said subsidized their expenditure and ensured that the organization functioned and represented member interests efficiently.“Essentially the DHTA wants to extend sincere appreciation for your company’s partnership and financial contribution over 2015/2016…we want to express our sincere appreciation for your support for the association, without your financial contribution we could not run the association and from our financials you see how important that contribution is to running the association.”KPB Accounting as well as DeFreitas, DeFreitas and Johnson were also specially mentioned for providing pro bono legal and accounting services to the association.“These companies through their partnership have demonstrated their commitment to tourism industry and to tourism private sector, we want to ensure that our members reciprocate that level of engagement and collaboration and partnership,” Astaphan said.last_img read more