Commissioner line-up announced for Law Family Commission on Civil Society

first_imgCommissioner line-up announced for Law Family Commission on Civil Society Professor Dame Nancy RothwellPresident and Vice-Chancellor, Professor of Physiology, University of Manchester Baroness Valerie Amos, CH, PCFormer UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator and Secretary of State for International Development AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Michele (Mitch) OliverGlobal VP Brand & Purpose at Mars, Trustee Stonewall “2020 is such a powerful year for us to embark on this work on the Law Family Commission on Civil Society. The challenges facing our country are so multifaceted and dangerously divisive that we now need to bring evidence, expertise and lived experience into the same spaces. I’m looking forward to working collaboratively to provide robust challenges to the status quo and to spark new thinking that simply works better, for all.”  672 total views,  3 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Melanie May | 9 October 2020 | News  671 total views,  2 views today Sir Harvey McGrathChair, Big Society Capital Theresa ShearerCEO, ENABLE Scotland Ruth IbegbunaCEO Founder, RECLAIM and Director of The Roots Programme Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson DBECrossbench peer, Paralympian and Chancellor of Northumbria University Dr Javed KhanChief Executive, Barnardo’s Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Gus O’Donnell is to chair the Law Family Commission on Civil Society, Pro Bono Economics has today announced, with a 17-strong team of Commissioners.The two-year Commission launches in December and will steer a programme of research into how best to unleash the full potential of the UK’s civil society.The Commission has been made possible through the support of the Law Family Charitable Foundation and will be run by Pro Bono Economics. It will examine all aspects of civil society, from volunteering and philanthropy to communities and the relationship between civil society and government.The 17 Commissioners are drawn from the private, public and social sectors, and are former politicians, philanthropists and leaders of small charities, universities, businesses and community groups. On the charity side, they include Ruth Ibegbuna, Director of The Roots Programme, Dr Javed Khan, Chief Executive of Barnardo’s, Karl Wilding, CEO of sector body NCVO, and Matt Whittaker, CEO of Pro Bono Economics.Lord O’Donnell said:“Civil society has long been undervalued and overlooked. Yet charities employ almost as many people as financial services and generate around £200 billion of social value, equivalent to 10% of GDP. The coronavirus crisis has highlighted the critical role of civil society in all our lives. After years of policy neglect, now is the time to examine properly the changes that are needed to allow civil society to do still more to improve our country.“Leading businesses are putting purpose and profit on a par. Government wants to level up the country. Charities themselves know they’re going to have to do more with less as the recession bites. None of the three sectors can fulfil their aims without the others.“It is essential all parts of society are involved in the conversation and working as one if the UK is to build back better from the Covid crisis. If we leave even one sector out, attempts to create inclusive growth will fail. That is why the Law Family Commission on Civil Society has brought all sectors – public, private and social – together to unlock civil society’s potential.”Ruth Ibegbuna, CEO Founder of RECLAIM and Director of The Roots Programme commented: Advertisement James Timpson OBE DLChief Executive, Timpson Ltd Tagged with: Civil Society Strategy The full list of Commissioners Joel DavisChief Executive, Tutors United Shaks Ghosh CBEChief Executive, Clore Social Leadership About Melanie May Melanie May is a journalist and copywriter specialising in writing both for and about the charity and marketing services sectors since 2001. She can be reached via www.thepurplepim.com. Mary Rose GunnChief Executive, The Fore Matt WhittakerCEO, Pro Bono Economics Stephan ShakespeareCEO, YouGov Vidhya AlakesonChief Executive, Power to Change Karl WildingCEO, NCVO Lord Gus O’DonnellFormer Cabinet Secretary, Chairman of Frontier Economicslast_img read more

An editor jailed for publishing false information that led to woman’s death

first_img June 7, 2021 Find out more Mongolia : RSF urges presidential candidates to voice support for press freedom Help by sharing this information October 28, 2020 Find out more August 2, 2002 – Updated on January 20, 2016 An editor jailed for publishing false information that led to woman’s death Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans frontières – RSF) has expressed its concern after the editor of Mongolian daily newspaper Ug (Word) was jailed for one year for publishing false information that led indirectly to the death of a woman it had named as a possible AIDS victim.The editor, Hand-dolgor, was sentenced by a court in Sukhbaatar district of the capital Ulan Bator on 31 July after she was found guilty of “defamation” under article 117.2 of the Criminal Law and imprisoned at the Gants Hudag detention centre.Her newspaper carried an article on 5 March 2002 deploring the spread of AIDS in Selenge province on Mongolia’s northern border. A woman was named in the article as a supposed AIDS victim, who had a large number of sexual partners. After a health check by officials found her HIV-negative, the editor published a front-page apology that appeared on April 26.But, on 18 May, the woman was beaten to death by one of her lovers who had demanded proof she did not have AIDS.”Defamation is a crime that should be punished, but Reporters Without Borders considers – based on the view of the UN Special rapporteur on freedom of expression – that a jail term is a disproportionate sanction. The editor of Ug cannot be held directly responsible for the tragic events that followed publication of the article,” said Reporters Without Borders General Secretary Robert Ménard, in a letter to Mongolian justice and internal affairs minister, Tsendiin Nyamdorj.While condemning the flagrant breach of journalistic ethics in the case, Reporters Without Borders urged the minister to ensure that the journalist was able to benefit from a fair appeal hearing. News News MongoliaAsia – Pacific Follow the news on Mongolia MongoliaAsia – Pacific center_img News to go further RSF_en Campaigns UN human rights review on Mongolia: RSF urges members to join its call for press freedom reforms Receive email alerts Organisation Mongolia: RSF calls for media reform to tackle corruption June 2, 2020 Find out morelast_img read more

€6000 fine for Cranberries singer over air rage incident

first_imgWhatsApp Twitter TAGSfeatured Previous article#GE16 O Dea denies urging voters to give Jan second preference votesNext articleHomeless thief robbed wheelchair user Staff Reporterhttp://www.limerickpost.ie Advertisement Email Walk in Covid testing available in Limerick from Saturday 10th April Dolores O’RioranDolores O’RiordanCRANBERRIES lead singer Dolores O’Riordan has been ordered to pay €6,000 to the court poor box within one week after a judge said that it would be unfair and unjust to leave her with a criminal conviction over an air rage incident on a flight from New York to Shannon over a year ago.Ms O’Riordan (44) with an address at Friarstown, Kilmallock had admitted three counts of assault and another charge relating to the obstruction a garda at Shannon Airport on November 10, 2014.Evidence had been heard in the case that the Limerick singer became unruly during the New York to Shannon flight.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up Upon arrival, Ms O’Riordan assaulted two members of the airport police before she headbutted and spat at a garda who she falsely claimed had sexually assaulted her.She was arrested and later found singing in the custody cells proclaiming that she was the “Queen of Limerick”.In medical evidence presented to the court, Dolores O’Riordan was described as being in a hypomanic state at the time of the incident and could no be held responsible for her actions.In his ruling, Judge Patrick Durcan said that he was satisfied that Ms O’Riordan was suffering from a mental illness and thus inhibited her judgement.Ms O’Riordan was ordered to pay €6,000 into the court poor box within the week. Surgeries and clinic cancellations extended NewsBreaking news€6000 fine for Cranberries singer over air rage incidentBy Staff Reporter – February 24, 2016 1708 center_img Shannondoc operating but only by appointment Print RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Facebook No vaccines in Limerick yet Proceedures and appointments cancelled again at UHL First Irish death from Coronavirus Linkedinlast_img read more

Permanent Commission- “How Do You Ignore Those Women Who Are Not Considered In The Past, Are Now Not Being Granted PC Citing Bodily Impairments”: SC Asks Centre

first_imgTop StoriesPermanent Commission- “How Do You Ignore Those Women Who Are Not Considered In The Past, Are Now Not Being Granted PC Citing Bodily Impairments”: SC Asks Centre Srishti Ojha3 March 2021 7:55 AMShare This – xJustice Chandrachud observed that it is true that women go through certain aspects like childbirth, menopause etc which changes their body and this cannot be ignored. He added that the idea here is not to give women officers special dispensation but how do you ignore that those women who weren’t considered for PC in the past, are now not being granted it based on bodily impairments.A division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah on Wednesday heard a batch of pleas filed by women Army officers seeking grant of permanent commission and related benefits. The Court will continue hearing the matter again on Thursday, March 4th. During the hearing today Senior Advocate PS Patwalia made submissions on behalf of some…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah on Wednesday heard a batch of pleas filed by women Army officers seeking grant of permanent commission and related benefits. The Court will continue hearing the matter again on Thursday, March 4th. During the hearing today Senior Advocate PS Patwalia made submissions on behalf of some of the women Army officers stating that these officers were not assessed like their male counterparts after completion of 5 years of service. Senior Advocate Balasubramaniam appearing for the Defence Ministry explained the Court about the medical categories based on which officers are assessed for grant of permanent commission. He stated there are 5 medical categories SHAPE, which is an acronym, where S stands for psychiatric, H for hearing, A for appendages, P is for physical and E is for eye sight. While Shape 1 is the fittest, Shape 5 is on other end of spectrum and means the officer is unfit for any duty and will have to be released from duty. “So If a person is on 1 in any of the parameters they are out? ” the Bench asked.Senior Counsel Balasubramaniam answered in the affirmative and stated that if a person is in a temporary medical category, time is given so their condition stabilises. Senior Advocate PS Patwalia submitted that for grant of permanent commission to these officers, the medical criteria that is being applied now is that which was applied to their male counterparts after the first 5 years of their service, when they are 25-30 years of age. “All that we are saying is treat us like our male counterparts” – Senior Advocate PS Patwalia remarked.”So you are not seeking any special treatment. You are saying that don’t asses us today based on criteria of assessment of male counterparts at age of 25″ the Bench noted.Justice Chandrachud observed that it is true that women go through certain aspects like childbirth, menopause etc which changes their body and this cannot be ignored. He added that the idea here is not to give women officers special dispensation but how do you ignore that those women who weren’t considered for PC in the past, are now not being granted it based on bodily impairments.Patwalia submitted that this is a peculiar batch of officers who hadn’t completed their 14 years of service when the Court issued its judgement last year but had completed 14 years when the circular for grant of PC was issue, and therefore they should have been considered. Mr Patwalia also stated that the granting PC to women officers based on the last empaneled male officer was not correct, as the ACRs of the male officers were written keeping in mind that they would be considered for PC while the same was not true for women officers. Advocate Tarunvir Khehar appearing for one Army Officer Lt Col Megha Gupta submitted that being in a technical course, she was granted a retrospective seniority, and should therefore come under the minimum scope of being granted permanent commission. In response to the Bench’s question as to how the officer was given retrospective seniority, Khehar clarified that the petitioner is in a technical course, and officers in special courses like Doctors, JAG, etc are given extra seniority. Khehar further stated that the petitioner was considered by a Special Review Board and results should have been out by now. He added that the respondents should consider telling him the result of review of her consideration for permanent commission. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appeared on behalf of the petitioner women officers who have finished 10-14 years of service. He submitted that there are two aspects, One with regard to Permanent Commission, and second with regard to right to pension. The Court asked Ahmadi as to how the petitioners can be considered if they haven’t even completed 14 years of service. Ahmadi responded by stating there is no intelligible differentia between people in the category of those in 10-14 years and those who have completed 14 years. Some of the submissions made by Senior Counsel Ahmadi were: The aspect that today they cannot be considered for any other employment hasn’t been considered. If they are not considered they will be left high and dry, it will be unjust and the Court should find a way to alleviate that The case of the women who have served for 10-14 years was not represented before this Court, please find a way to alleviate that. They have been denied PC based on a wrong threshold. The threshold and criteria applied to a male officers after 5 years is what is being applied to a lady officer after 15 years. This is like comparing apples and oranges. The ACR’s, being made the basis for considering them for PC now, were being marked for these officers back then in a casual manner This is arbitrary. These officers in so far as pension is concerned, if they’re retired without pension, they won’t be able to get any other government job and have no other career option available.This wasn’t brought before this Court before and the Court should alleviate that. The male officers are allowed direct entry into Permanent commission, but the same is not available to women officers, who have to get into Short service commission first. Equality should be in all terms. ” Your point is that can they apply the same medical yardstick to women that are being considered for PC much later due to government’s delay in execution of the High Court’s order, as was applied to male counterparts much earlier.” the Bench observed.Advocate Shri Venkatesh for Intervenors who are scheduled to be discharged from service in March 2021. He stated that the discharge orders were issued on 19th November 2020 and are effective from March 2021, so these officers stand to be discharged on 16 March. Advocate Venkatesh submitted that the male officers are given two options to appear before a selection Board, but after deciding to discharge the petitioner female officers in November, a second SB chance was not given to them, and is therefore an issue of equity. These officers are being ousted on the first selection itself, and had they been given a second chance, they could have improved their performance and been selected in the second board. Advocate Venkatesh also urged the Court to consider granting these officers an interim relief by these officers will be discharged in March and if no interim order is issued, they will be discharged and we will have no remedy left. On being informed by Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora that salaries of some petitioner women officers for the month of January haven’t been released, the Bench stated that salary of these officers should be released by Friday. Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment on gender equality, had in February 2020 directed that Permanent Commission should be granted to women in army regardless of their service, in all the ten streams where the Union Government have already taken a decision to grant Short Service Commission to women. The Court also held that absolute exclusion of women from command assignments is against Article 14 of the Constitution and unjustified. Therefore, the policy that women will be given only “staff appointments” was held to be unenforceable by the Court. The Court had held that an absolute prohibition of women SSC officers to obtain anything but staff appointments evidently does not fulfil the purpose of granting PCs as a means of career advancement in the Army. The blanket non- consideration of women for criteria or command appointments absent an individuated justification by the Army cannot be sustained in lawSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

CAES DC Fellows

first_imgThis summer, seven University of Georgia students have embarked on the opportunity of a lifetime, serving as UGA Congressional Agricultural Fellows in Washington, D.C. The offices of Georgia Senators David Perdue and Johnny Isakson and Representatives Sanford Bishop, Doug Collins, Buddy Carter, Rick Allen and Austin Scott are hosting the students during the 12-week fellowship in the nation’s capital. The students, who attend UGA’s College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (CAES), prepare briefs, attend committee hearings and conduct food- and agriculture-related research. In addition, they have the option of earning credit hours towards graduation. “Ag Fellows are full-time employees of the congressional offices and serve as apprentice staff members,” said Josef Broder, CAES associate dean for academic affairs and the fellowship program coordinator. “Many will be asked to serve as mentors to other student interns.” Students representing the University of Georgia as 2015 Congressional Agricultural Fellows include Dowdy White, of Cordele, Georgia; Matthew Pace, of Lyerly, Georgia; Nicole Holden, of Greensboro, Georgia; Casey Chastain, of Helen, Georgia; Kelsie Bickett, of Chickamauga, Georgia; Katelin Benkoski, of Madison, Georgia; and Ethan Perkins, of Brooklet, Georgia. Matthew Pace, a senior studying agricultural and applied economics, will be working in Sen. Johnny Isakson’s office. Matthew is the son of Wayne and Kari Pace. Nicole Holden, a senior studying agribusiness with a certificate in agrosecurity, will be working in Rep. Austin Scott’s office. Nicole is the daughter of Don and Andrea Holden. Kelsie Bickett, a senior studying agricultural communication, will be working in Sen. David Perdue’s office. Kelsie is the daughter of Todd and Alisa Bickett. Katelin Benkoski, a senior studying animal science and agribusiness, will be working in Rep. Buddy Carter’s office. Katelin is the daughter of John and Julie Benkoski. Dowdy White, a senior studying agricultural communication, will be working in Rep. Sanford Bishop’s office. Dowdy is the son of Billy and Gwen White. Casey Chastain, a junior studying agricultural communication and education, will be working in Rep. Doug Collins’ office. Casey is the daughter of Brad and Lori Chastain. Ethan Perkins, a junior studying agricultural communication, will be working in Rep. Rick Allen’s office. Ethan is the son of Emory and Kristie Perkins. The Congressional Agricultural Fellowship is made available through the UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Deans’ Promise program. A collection of enrichment opportunities ranging from internships to study abroad opportunities, the Deans’ Promise program encourages CAES students to take advantage of unique, out-of-the-classroom opportunities during their time in college. For more information on the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, the Deans’ Promise or other opportunities available to UGA students, visit caes.uga.edu.last_img read more