Pinterest A study published in Sexuality & Culture has found that a substantial proportion of male college students who identify as heterosexual have kissed another man.The researchers surveyed 442 men from 11 universities across the United States. They also conducted in-depth interviews with 75 male college students. All of the participants described themselves as heterosexual.Forty percent of the participants reported having kissed another man on the cheek, while 10% reported having kissed another man on the lips. Alcohol consumption was related to kissing another man, and participants who were involved in all-male competitive sports or members of a fraternal organization were more likely to have kissed another man.“A few of the guys in the frat have been known to kiss each other when drunk, it’s become pretty normal now. We all know who the kissers are!” one participant told the researchers.The study also found that those with more favorable attitudes toward gay men were more likely to have kissed another man.Some of the participants said they did not consider kissing to be a sexual act. “I kiss [my friend] because I love him. I’m not attracted to him like that, but I do love him,” one student explained.While for others, the opposite was true. “I consider it to be an intimate thing, something I’d only do with a significant other. That crosses boundaries that aren’t anything to do with gay. I wouldn’t even do it with a female friend because that’d just be weird,” a participant told researchers.The findings indicate that “same-sex kissing between men is a behavior that can be engaged in while maintaining a heterosexual identity at these universities,” the researchers concluded.The study, “A Mixed-Method Study of Same-Sex Kissing Among College-Attending Heterosexual Men in the U.S.“, was authored by Eric Anderson, Matthew Ripley, and Mark McCormack. Share on Facebook Email LinkedIn Share Share on Twitter
Jun 29, 2010 (CIDRAP News) – The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reported some problems at a CSL Biotherapies facility in Australia that makes influenza vaccine for the US market, including a failure to fully investigate particles found in some vaccine vials.The FDA yesterday released a copy of a letter to CSL about what it called “deviations from current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements” in the production of a seasonal flu vaccine, Afluria, and a monovalent vaccine for the 2009 H1N1 virus.The company said the concerns raised by the FDA are not related to the higher-than-expected rate of fever and convulsions reported recently in young Australian children who received a seasonal flu vaccine made by CSL, according to a Reuters report published today. Those adverse events were associated mainly with Fluvax, according to earlier reports.The FDA letter said the deficiencies were found during an inspection of the CSL facility in Parkville, Victoria, Australia, between Apr 19 and 28. The letter was signed by Mary A. Malarkey, director of the compliance office in the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.The letter says the company’s investigation into “the formation of dark particles” in multi-dose vials of Afluria was “inadequate.” The investigation did not document that corrective and preventive actions were traceable, and it did not examine the possibility that the particles were caused by an interaction between the vaccine and the vial or stopper, the letter states.The FDA said further that CSL was still using a certain type of rubber stopper on multi-dose vials containing the preservative thimerosal, although the manufacturer had advised that the stoppers may react with thimerosal. Also, the company did not study possible interactions between the vaccine and the stoppers and vials used in 29 lots of Afluria and H1N1 vaccine that were marketed in the United States, the letter says.The agency also asserted that the company failed to ensure that samples from vaccine lots were tested at least once a year for evidence of deterioration.The letter acknowledges a written response provided by CSL on May 14, in which the company promised to address problems the FDA had previously communicated to the firm. But the letter asks for more information and a meeting with CSL officials to discuss the issues.Efforts to reach CSL officials for comments on the FDA letter today were unsuccessful. According to today’s Reuters report, CSL said letters like the one from the FDA are “not uncommon,” but the company is taking the issues raised by the FDA “very seriously.””The FDA has stated that there is no direct connection between the increase in reports of fever and febrile convulsions reported in young children in Australia this season and the issues raised” in the FDA letter, CSL officials said, as reported by Reuters.The increased adverse events in vaccinated Australian children were first reported in late April. They prompted the company to stop distributing its pediatric flu vaccine and caused Australian authorities to advise providers to stop immunizing children 5 years old and younger, pending an investigation. So far, investigations by the company and Australian authorities have not yielded an explanation.See also: Jun 28 FDA letter to CSLJun 1 CIDRAP News story about reactions in Australian children who received CSL flu vaccine
Sep 23, 2010Multidrug-resistant 2009 H1N1 virus reported in teenagerA 2009 H1N1 flu virus that contributed to the death of a 14-year-old girl was resistant to three neuraminidase inhibitors, pointing up the need for new types of antivirals, according to a letter in the Oct 15 Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID). The girl, who had systemic lupus erythematosus and other illnesses, was hospitalized with respiratory failure in October 2009. She was first treated with oseltamivir (Tamiflu) for several weeks and later with intravenous zanamivir (Relenza), but she died of complications in late December. Testing of samples taken in November showed that the virus was highly resistant to oseltamivir. It also showed evidence of resistance to peramivir and zanamivir, though to much lower degrees. Sequencing of the virus showed its neuraminidase protein contained two mutations: H275Y, which is known to confer resistance to oseltamivir but not zanamivir, and I223R. In one previous case, the I223R mutation alone was associated with slight resistance to oseltamivir and peramivir, the report says. Compared with strains featuring either mutation alone, the “dual mutant I223R/H275Y” showed greater resistance. “The potential for emergence of viruses resistant to multiple neuraminidase inhibitors reinforces efforts to develop drugs with a different mechanism of action,” the report states.Oct 15 CID letter2009 H1N1 can gain Tamiflu resistance in less than 2 daysPhysicians from Singapore say they determined that the 2009 H1N1 virus became resistant to oseltamivir in less than 48 hours after a 28-year-old woman began receiving the antiviral, much faster than reported in other cases, according to a report in Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID). The patient began receiving oseltamivir on the fourth day of her illness; the mutation that confers resistance (H275Y) was detected in a sample collected on the sixth day. Only wild-type (nonresistant) amino acid sequences were found in samples taken before and 14 hours after the start of oseltamivir treatment, but H275Y was found in 52% of the sequences from samples collected at 45 hours after treatment initiation. “Clinicians should consider resistance when patients do not respond to treatment for pandemic (H1N1) 2009 because H275Y can emerge literally overnight,” the report states. Oseltamivir resistance has been seen sporadically in 2009 H1N1 patients, most commonly in immunocompromised patients receiving longer-than-normal courses of treatment.October EID reportEarly antivirals failed to protect some patients in JapanResearchers writing in Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) report that significant percentages of Japanese patients who had fatal or severe cases of 2009 H1N1 flu during the pandemic had received early antiviral treatment (oseltamivir or zanamivir). The researchers looked at all 198 fatal H1N1 cases reported to the Japanese health ministry from Aug 15, 2009, to Mar 15, 2010, and at 56 severe cases reported from Aug 5 to Oct 11, 2009, when the ministry stopped reporting the latter. Of the 298 fatal cases, 158 patients had received antivirals, and 104 of 158 (66%) started treatment within 1 or 2 days of first symptoms. Among the 56 severe cases, 42 patients had received antiviral treatment, 30 of them (71%) within the first 2 days. The median time to initiation of antiviral treatment was 1 day for both groups. “Although our observational data do not provide direct evidence of the effectiveness of antiviral treatment, our data clearly indicate that some severe cases had fatal outcomes despite their early treatment with antiviral drugs,” the report says. The authors did not include information on the patients’ previous health or underlying conditions.Oct 15 CID letterHigh rates of underlying conditions seen in H1N1 hospitalizationsTwo new studies of patients who were hospitalized after contracting 2009 pandemic H1N1, one from Japan and one from Spain, found high percentages of underlying medical conditions. In the Japanese study, of 12,702 hospitalized patients, 4,420 (35%) had underlying medical conditions. But in those 5 to 9 years old, 81% had underlying conditions. For those with underlying conditions, incidence of hospitalization was 814.1, 573.7, and 219.0 per 100,000 persons for those 5 to 9, 10 to 14, and 15 to 19 years old, respectively; compared with only 6.7 for those 60 to 69. Those under 20 had a higher risk for hospitalization compared with seasonal flu. The researchers conclude, “Our findings justify prioritizing the treatment of children and young adults by vaccination and early prescription of antiviral drugs.”Sep 22 Emerg Infect Dis studyIn the Spanish study, 74% of 3,025 hospital patients had underlying medical conditions, and, of all the patients, 852 (28%) were admitted to intensive care and 200 (7%) died. Among the children, 61% had underlying conditions, compared with 77% of adults. Among all patients 39% had two or more underlying conditions. The median age was 38. The researchers found these conditions to be “significantly associated with a worse outcome” in adults: morbid obesity, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and receiving antiviral medication more than 48 hours after symptom onset. The authors conclude, “These findings should be taken into account when planning, including vaccination strategies, for upcoming influenza seasons.”Sep 23 Eurosurveillance study
Share The Sag Harbor American Music Festival offered something for everyone on September 28 and 29. Along with concerts featuring big names across all genres, there were local faves, outdoor music, and, of course, plenty of dancing in the streets. Featured players included Jane Monheit, a tribute to Aretha Franklin, and the Scofflaws, along with East End legends like Gene Casey, Inda Eaton, Mamalee Rose, Joe Delia, Caroline Doctorow, Alfredo Merat, Black and Sparrow, and the Nancy Atlas Project.
Wearing two hats Businesses entering pre-packaged administrations (‘pre-packs’) have been grabbing headlines. Retailers Habitat UK, Alexon Group and Jane Norman are but a few high-profile examples. But there are examples in the legal sector too. Assets of top 50 law firm Halliwells were purchased by Hill Dickinson, HBJ Gateley Wareing and Barlow Lyde & Gilbert as part of a pre-pack deal in 2010. A pre-pack involves the sale of an insolvent company’s business and assets that is agreed in principle before the company goes into administration. The sale is then carried out immediately after the administrator is appointed. This form of insolvency procedure is credited by proponents with maintaining business activity and jobs in a very difficult trading environment. However, the government, backed by some creditors, has worries about pre-packs: what is called ‘phoenixing’ or sales to ‘connected’ parties, typically to the existing management or owners of the insolvent company – minus the debts. Last year, 72% of pre-pack sales were to individuals and companies associated with the failed company, according to data compiled by the Insolvency Service (IS), part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). In March, following a government consultation, minister Edward Davey announced a string of proposals for tightening controls on pre-pack sales to connected parties. The aim, Davey argued, was not to ‘outlaw’ pre-packs, but to make sure they were done ‘fairly and reasonably’. He said: ‘I want to make sure that creditors have a fair chance to have their voice heard.’ In June the IS published draft regulations on pre-packs that were to be implemented via amendments to the Insolvency Rules 1986. However they pleased no one, not even the creditors, so they were withdrawn. Richard Wolff, head of corporate and insolvency at Manchester solicitors JMW, says: ‘So many people on both sides of the divide thought the rules were so wide of the mark that it’s almost back to the drawing board.’ The amended rules were originally expected to be implemented in October but now this ‘will not be before April 2012’, an IS spokesperson told the Gazette. The government is still considering responses and IS hopes to publish new draft regulations at the beginning of next year. Despite criticism of the government’s proposals, ministers are tapping into real concerns among unsecured creditors. Richard Barnett, head of legal at Euler Hermes, the UK’s biggest credit insurer, argues: ‘The system at the moment puts unsecured creditors at a massive disadvantage. The owners of the business who mismanaged it and put it into a difficult position in the first place, come out well from this process because they get the profitable part of their business sold back to them free of debt. The secured creditors normally get paid 100% and the unsecured creditors receive absolutely nothing, which seems to us fundamentally unfair.’ The notice mechanism proposal is supported by Euler Hermes, whose clients are small to medium-sized unsecured trade creditors supplying goods and services typically on 90-day credit terms. But the credit insurer would like to see a longer notice period, in order to allow unsecured creditors time to examine sale proposals, seek advice and take any action. Barnett says: ‘While confidential discussions are going on between the IP, secured creditors and the owners of the distressed company, there is no warning to our clients [the unsecured trade creditors] who will go on extending credit with no idea that a pre-pack is around the corner.’ Euler Hermes also wants changes regarding what it sees as a conflict of interest in the role of IPs under pre-pack. Currently the IP acts as both an adviser to the directors of the company and the secured creditors before the pre-pack is implemented, and then as the administrator who effects the sale. Barnett points out that unsecured creditors are excluded from the confidential discussions leading to a pre-pack and can only object to the sale after the deal is done. ‘It’s a fairly long and expensive process to challenge retrospectively the act of the IP and that virtually never happens,’ he says. ‘We think there is a clear conflict in the way IPs are allowed to wear two hats. There should be a ban on the same IP acting as both the adviser to the distressed company prior to the pre-pack and acting as the administrator to implement it.’ The idea is that a second IP would be a better guarantor and that the interests of all creditors are considered. However, Julie Palmer, a partner at insolvency specialist Begbies Traynor, argues that this is impractical. ‘These are often extremely urgent situations. To take additional time to have somebody else come in would delay the process and seriously hamper the ability to save a lot of these businesses and many jobs.’ But unsecured creditors do not buy the argument that pre-packs are good for employment either. ‘You save jobs at the company that is subject to the pre-pack but the knock-on effect on the companies in the supply chain may mean that you lose jobs in those companies as a result of insolvencies through loss of their receivables,’ argues Barnett. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it Keeping creditors sweet – SIP 16 Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP) 16 was introduced in January 2009 to allay concerns about the perceived lack of transparency of pre-packs. It requires IPs to make detailed written disclosures to creditors where there is a pre-pack sale. This includes an explanation and justification of why a pre-pack was undertaken and what alternatives were considered by the IP. The IS has been monitoring the operation of SIP 16. In 2010 compliance increased to 75%, from 62% in 2009. Of 136 cases found not to be compliant (out of 538 companies reviewed), 13 were referred by the IS to one of seven IP regulatory bodies (RPBs). Simmons & Simmons’ Alan Gar argues that SIP 16 is working: ‘Cases of non-compliance are dropping,’ he says. ‘The great majority of IPs are substantively complying with SIP 16 and only a very small number of cases are serious enough to merit a referral to the regulatory body.’ Also, sales to connected parties have declined from 79% in 2009 to 72% in 2010 and Gar sees a ‘correlation’ between this fall and the introduction of SIP 16. Creditors are more cautious about SIP 16. Euler Hermes’ Richard Barnett says there are two main problems with it. First, SIP 16 is an ‘after-the-event’ disclosure: ‘It is very difficult for trade creditors to take any sort of action once the dust is settled.’Barnett also questions why only 13 of the 136 non-compliant cases resulted in disciplinary referrals. ‘So we query whether SIP 16 is being enforced strongly enough by the IS.’ Barnett would like to see the disclosure requirements in SIP 16 given statutory force, with penalties for non-compliance. That proposal was in the government consultation, but did not make it into the draft rules. Three days’ notice By far the most controversial provision in the draft rules – and one that the government is understood to be wedded to – was the requirement that IPs give three business days’ notice to all creditors of the terms of any proposed sales to a connected party where there has been no open marketing of the assets. Davey said that the notice would allow creditors ‘to express concerns… or to make a higher offer for the assets, and in cases where the circumstances justify it, apply to the court for injunctive relief’. In fact, the notice proposals were something of a surprise, as they were not in the original consultation. ‘It appears to be something of a sound-bite fix, but for us it is the worst of all worlds,’ says Coulson. Three business days may not be enough time for creditors to object. At the same time, says Coulson, it is probably long enough to ‘derail a rescue’. Especially if you consider that a notice period of three business days means a week, because it excludes the posting day of receipt and any weekend, she notes. During this period suppliers could threaten to object to the proposed pre-pack and act unreasonably by varying terms, for example by increasing the costs of materials, supplies or services, reducing returns to creditors. And a week is long enough ‘for your key employees to worry and disappear or be poached’, adds Coulson. Alan Gar, a partner at Simmons & Simmons’ London corporate recovery and restructuring practice, points to the example of law firms, where value is strongly tied up with their people. He says: ‘The moment people learn about a pre-pack they become uncertain and concerned and would just leave. You would lose much of the value that you were looking to preserve. A pre-pack is all about speed because speed helps retain value. My concern with putting in three days for creditors to stop the sale going ahead is that you would take away the very reason why pre-packs work.’ He adds: ‘I think we would have seen a different result with Halliwells if we had seen such a three-day advert.’ Creditors argue that disclosure means they get a better deal. But Elizabeth Taylor, a partner in the insolvency team at Darbys Solicitors, says: ‘There is this presumption on the part of creditors that there is some stitch-up and that, by giving notice, somehow there is going to be a higher price paid for the assets. Nine times out 10, a pre-pack is all about preserving the goodwill. If you suddenly start advertising to the world that the business is bust, that there is going to be a pre-pack, potentially it’s likely to result in there being no offers for the business and the goodwill being lost.’ Even with a notice period, unsecured creditors may struggle to challenge in court the administrator’s decision. ‘We have seen time and again judges say that they are not accountants or insolvency practitioners and that they cannot give a commercial judgment,’ Gar says. Put forward in the name of fairness, this proposal also potentially makes the pre-pack administration process even less fair, some argue. Normally some creditors are left out in the cold in an insolvency and these will predominantly be the unsecured creditors, who by law get paid last, after the administrators, employees and secured creditors, in that order. Chris Mallon, president of the Insolvency Lawyers Association (ILA), says: ‘You would have to give notice to people who are completely out of the money and will never have an economic interest in the company [under administration]. You would give them a voice, a negotiating lever in a situation where in other circumstances they would not have it.’ But JMW’s Wolff comments: ‘It is all very good to say we’ve got to give all the creditors a say but if that includes creditors who are so far down the pecking order that they may not get any returns, then is it right that they destroy value for the secured creditors who have got a legitimate expectation?’ The other problem with the three-day notice provision is that it appears to ignore the reality that existing management is often part of a business’s successful exit from administration. ‘Once a company goes into administration, the only people who are prepared to buy it – particularly at the smaller end of the market – are the directors and they are the people who are best placed to run it because they know the business,’ says Mallon. ‘They are prepared to put new money in and take the risk again themselves.’ Paul Gilks, partner and head of the corporate department at London-based Glovers notes that banks have to be behind any pre-pack and their support is nearly always conditional on the owner-directors of the insolvent business injecting fresh cash. ‘That is why pre-packs are good. They force re-investment where businesses have some chance of recovering,’ he says. There is currently no legislation on pre-packs, although there is case law (Re T&D Industries Plc and Re Transbus International Ltd) which shows that a sale can be agreed in advance of the administration. Ruth Jordan, an insolvency barrister at Serle Court, says: ‘That is possibly the reason why the government is bringing in these rules, because pre-packs were developed by insolvency practitioners in their roles as administrators.’ Jordan explains that pre-packs have been on the increase since the Enterprise Act 2002 came into force in 2003. The act permits an administrator to be appointed, by a creditor, company or director, without a court application and hearing. But along with their growth has come criticism. Jordan says: ‘Before the Enterprise Act, even if you could arrange the sale of a company while it was going into administration you were always going to go to court anyway to decide whether it was appropriate to put the company into administration. But, from 2003, there was the perception that backroom deals could be done.’ However, she adds: ‘These [draft] rules have gone too far because they are trying to deal with a perception of unfairness and there is still a question mark over whether there is evidence of actual abuse.’ Frances Coulson, president of R3, the insolvency trade association, agrees: ‘I think that pre-packs get a bad press because creditors don’t like seeing the same directors carrying on running the same business as if nothing happened.’ She believes this is an ‘emotional reaction’. Coulson points to research conducted by Dr Sandra Frisby of the University of Nottingham in 2010. This shows that secured creditors, typically banks, recover an average of 35% of debts in pre-packs, compared with 33% in a straightforward business sale, that is, a ‘going concern’ sale of the business negotiated and arranged after the start of the insolvency procedure. Returns to unsecured creditors, which typically feel most hard done by pre-packs, are also slightly higher – an average of 5% in a pre-pack compared with 4% in a business sale. Dr Frisby also found that pre-packs are good for preserving jobs. In 92% of pre-packs all employees were transferred to the new company, compared with 65% in a business sale. The other two key provisions in the draft rules were for administrators to file a disclosure similar to the Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP) 16 (see box) at Companies House and to confirm in their ‘consent to act’ document that any pre-agreed sale price represents the ‘best value’ for creditors. The first requirement appears uncontroversial. But there are concerns among IPs that disclosing the sale price at such an early stage in the process would make negotiations with interested parties difficult. Begbies Traynor’s Palmer says: ‘By disclosing the proposed sale price at that point I would be giving my hand away. I would be saying “I think this is what this business is worth” during confidential discussions with interested parties.’ For Glover’s Gilks the government’s proposals, including the three-day notice period, do not appear ‘onerous’. Legislation would give pre-packs ‘statutory credibility’, says Gilks, adding: ‘It might bring pre-packs out of the shadows and into everyday normal restructuring transactions.’ But R3’s Coulson maintains that ‘in this dreadful economic climate with no signs of getting better it is the worst time really to tie practitioners’ hands behind their backs and prevent them from having this useful tool in their toolbox.’ Coulson argues that detractors need to recognise that pre-pack is just ‘one stage in the story’. It is one of the possible outcomes in the administration process – which has a statutory period of 12 months – including the liquidation of the company and possible legal action against directors by creditors. ‘Of course people just see that instant snapshot and they react badly to it,’ she says. The changes might also lead to unintended consequences. Begbies Traynor’s Palmer says: ‘I think the impact would be less successful rescues. Worryingly, I think it would open the door to unlicensed and unregulated advisers to go in and advise companies on how it might be better for them just to do a company sale without going through a proper insolvency procedure.’ She adds: ‘At least the insolvency procedure does flush out any wrongdoing on the part of the directors.’ IPs are required to report to the IS if they believe a company director has behaved in a dishonest or blameworthy way, thereby making the company’s financial distress worse. This can lead to disqualification proceedings. Besides, in its focus on pre-packs, the government might actually be overlooking other causes of disgruntlement among creditors. According to R3, which represents over 97% of the UK’s IPs, the number of cases of alleged misconduct by directors reported by R3 members to the IS increased from 3,394 in 2003/4 to 7,030 in 2009/10. But the proportion of these cases investigated by the IS has halved, from 40% in 2003/4 to 20% in 2009/10. This suggests there might be a growing problem of misconduct among company directors that is not being adequately addressed. Says Palmer: ‘The IS is undergoing cuts and we need to ensure that [it is] properly funded.’ As the government mulls its next moves over pre-packs, trading conditions for companies are deteriorating further. The stakes are high. Many stakeholders clearly feel that it’s a case of ‘it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ – and of pursuing a more holistic strategy to tackle creditors’ concerns. Out of court, out of sight Marialuisa Taddia is a freelance journalist
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 To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Subscribe now for unlimited access Get 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
Credit: Warner Bros. EntEvil resurfaces in Derry as director Andy Muschietti reunites the Losers Club in a return to where it all began with IT Chapter Two,” the conclusion to the highest-grossing horror film of all time.Twenty-seven years after the Losers Club defeated Pennywise, he has returned to terrorize the town of Derry once more. Now adults, the Losers have long since gone their separate ways. However, kids are disappearing again, so Mike, the only one of the group to remain in their hometown, calls the others home.Damaged by the experiences of their past, they must each conquer their deepest fears to destroy Pennywise once and for all…putting them directly in the path of the clown that has become deadlier than ever.Ahead of the highly anticipated epic finale IT Chapter Two on 6th September, we’re giving away the ultimate creepy bundle. Each bundle contains a Losers Club Cap, a tote bag, a mug and a dashboard Pennywise.IT Chapter Two will be released nationwide on 6th September 2019 by Warner Bros. Pictures. #ITCHAPTER2 #ITMOVIE© 2019 Warner Bros. Ent. All Rights ReservedTo celebrate the release of IT Chapter Two, we’ve got 3 merchandise bundles to give away. Enter below… The competition is open to all UK residents over the age of 18.Winners will be selected at random.By entering into the competition all entrants agree to be bound by the terms and conditions.Entertainment Focus does not allow collective or proxy entries.Entertainment Focus reserves the right to change or withdraw this competition without notice.Entertainment Focus will not pass your details to any third parties and they will be used solely for communication regarding this competition.Winners will be notified via email or social media and prizes must be claimed within 5 working days.Winners will be selected at random.In the unlikely event the prize style has discontinued a similar model to the same value will be provided.There is no cash or other alternative to the prize stated and the prize is not transferable. No part or parts of the prize may be substituted for other benefits, items or additions.Entertainment Focus’ decision is final – no correspondence will be entered into. The competition closes at 23.59 (GMT) on Sunday 8th September 2019.Terms & Conditions
Share Share 28 Views 2 comments Tweet Sharing is caring! Opposition Leader, Hector JohnThe United Workers Party (UWP) has announced that they will be taking what they consider a “constitutional crisis” regarding a replacement nominee for president to the public.President Liverpool whose term is expected to end in 2013 reportedly wrote to Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit, indicating his intention to demit office earlier due to illness.A special sitting of the Parliament was convened by Speaker of the House, Alix Boyd Knights on August 23rd, 2012 during which she explained that the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader were unable to agree on a joint nominee.As a result of this, Knights announced that members of the Parliament would have fourteen days (14) to send their nominations for a president to the clerk of the House of Assembly.Opposition Leader Hector John told Dominica Vibes News that this process is flawed and a total disrespect to the constitution of Dominica.“We want the government to halt the process and address the situation and follow the procedure set by the Constitution of Dominica so we can move in the right direction, that is all we want, nothing more. From inception the process has been flawed. Can you tell me whether there is a vacancy or show me documentary evidence saying there is a vacancy? The answer is no”.He explained that his party has written to the Prime Minister requesting a copy of the letter which he indicated the President wrote to him stating his intention to resign, but he replied by asking them to identify under what section of the constitution makes provision for that request. They have also written to the President requesting a copy of the letter but have not received a response.Therefore they have decided to host a public meeting to inform citizens of what is taking place.“We see it as very important to take this to the public, to educate the masses on what is happening right now with the procedure in terms of the removal and replacement of our president and that is very important”.He explained that his party is very concerned with the level of disrespect for the supreme law of the land; the constitution, and deems it their responsibility to inform the public of this.“We see it as a very important meeting, we see it as going there upholding the Constitution. It is not about the United Workers Party it is about the supreme law of the land and why each and every one of us must respect the constitution”.John has requested that Dominicans to come out in large numbers to give support to what we are doing and bringing the message out, letting the government and others know that we have to respect the Constitution. He also explained that his party is willing and ready to participate in the process but will only do so when it is done within the ambits of the law.To date, the UWP has not indicated who their nominee is however reports in the media indicate that former attorney general Henry Dyer might be the party’s nominee.Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit revealed that former permanent secretary and current chairman of the Independent Regulatory Commission, Eluid Williams as the government’s nominee after the special sitting of Parliament on August 23rd. The meeting will take place from 7:30 pm in Lagoon and will be carried live on Q95FM Radio.Domincia Vibes News Share LocalNews UWP takes president nomination concern to the public by: – September 10, 2012
u‑blox, a global provider of leading positioning and wireless communication technologies has introduced the VERA‑P3 V2X module for vehicle‑to‑everything (V2X) applications. Based on the u‑blox UBX‑P3 V2X chip, VERA‑P3 puts automotive OEMs, Tier‑1s, and manufacturers of traffic management infrastructure on a fast track to integrating V2X technology into their platforms and solutions and deploying it commercially.VERA‑P3 communicates via the IEEE 802.11p wireless standard, referred to as Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) in the USA, also known as ITS‑G5 in Europe, to connect vehicles with each other and with roadside infrastructure. By effectively seeing beyond the line of sight, V2X lets vehicles assist drivers in potentially dangerous situations, in the event of slow traffic ahead and by negotiating complex intersections. Smart cities can also benefit from vehicle‑to‑infrastructure (V2I) applications to manage traffic, from providing greenlight speed advisory, roadwork warnings, and hazardous location warnings.Ready to meet the upcoming market demand from the automotive industry, VERA‑P3 will play a crucial role in enabling truck platooning, which will be supported by the majority of trucks by 2025. VERA‑P3 is ideal for other applications such as agriculture and mining, where heavy machines need to communicate with each other to synchronize their activities.By putting VERA‑P3 as a V2X module on the market, u‑blox brings its own core technology in the hands of customers in an easy and accessible manner. u‑blox expertise in GNSS technology is also a key asset as satellite‑based positioning is becoming more and more crucial in V2X.The VERA‑P3 module packages the UBX‑P3 chip, which has already been successfully used in trials and customer applications, into an easy‑to‑use module. The module reduces the overall complexity of integrating the technology, speeding up time to market, reducing costs and capital investment, and future‑proofing end products.Based entirely on u‑blox core technology and leveraging the company’s long track record as a dependable partner to the automotive industry, VERA‑P3 offers customers quality, reliability, and peace of mind. Qualified for operation from -40°C to +105°C, the automotive grade product complies with WAVE and ETSI ITS G5 for operation on US and European territory.Customers will be able to get their hands on samples and evaluation kits starting from July, 2020.
MANILA – The Region VI Bacolod team settled for a runner-up finish in the girls basketball event of the Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas (SBP) 3×3 U-18 Basketball Pambansang Tatluhan at Robinsons’ Place in Ermita, Manila. Represented by Bacolod City National High School’s Kaye Pesquera, Shalimar Dublar, Hallyza Quiatchon, and Charity Grace Gicana, the Bacolod City-based team fell short of its title aspirations after losing to Region VII Cebu in Wednesday’s final. In boys basketball, the Region VI Iloilo, represented by Santa Clarita International School Primes’ Kimrey Servano, Rogelle Alvaladejo, Mon Alfred Pedrajas and Michael Jose Jayme, ended its campaign with a 12-9 win over Midsayap. The Region VI Bacolod team of Kaye Pesquera, Shalimar Dublar, Hallyza Quiatchon, and Charity Grace Gicana finished runner-up in the girls basketball event of the Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas (SBP) 3×3 U-18 Basketball Pambansang Tatluhan on Oct. 30, 2019 at Robinsons’ Place in Ermita, Manila. PHOTO COURTESY OF BAYANI LADRIDO It was almost a perfect campaign for the Bacolodnons; they swept their three elimination round matches before disposing NCR-S-6 in the quarterfinals and NCR-N in the semifinals. Region 1 Pampanga emerged as the boys 3×3 basketball champion after defeating Region 9 Zamboanga in the gold medal round. For Pesquera, Dublar and Gicana, it was their second straight year to finish runner-up; their Silvergraces team fell short last year in the championship match against Region 10. Region VII Cebu took the third placetrophy./PN