St Tiggywinkles Web site reviewed by Revolution About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis St Tiggywinkles Wildlife Hospital Trust’s Web site has been reviewed by Revolution magazine this week.St Tiggywinkles Wildlife Hospital Trust’s Web site has been reviewed by Revolution magazine this week.Hubeena Nadeem reviews St Tiggywinkles Wildlife Hospital Trust’s Web site in this week’s Revolution. The charity really has done very well at seeking media coverage for its Web presence. The Daily Telegraph’s Internet supplement recently gave the site half a page or so of coverage. It isn’t even a new site, just a revamp. Nevertheless, such publicity is valuable. Advertisement Howard Lake | 21 December 2000 | News Nadeem comments: “although it’s no example of design genius, it gets the message across.” She add “although some of the layout is arranged a little clumsily, the site concentrates on exchanging information with other wildlife trusts and hospitals and informing the public, and it achievesboth.” 17 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis
The partnership launched on 26 July 2008 to coincide with the release of the 70th Argos catalogue, and £11,000 was raised through Argos stores on the first day the catalogue was available to customers. By the end of the first two weeks of the partnership, £55,000 had been raised. Howard Lake | 15 January 2009 | News www.argos.co.uk AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Tagged with: corporate Research / statistics Volunteering 22 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Home Retail Group, owner of Argos and Homebase, has raised more than £550,000 for the British Heart Foundation (BHF) in the first six months of their partnership.This weekend sees the launch of Argos’ 2009 spring/summer catalogue, and is expected to be one of the busiest fundraising weekends of the year for the retailer. Over 400 BHF volunteers will be present in most of its UK stores to collect donations and talk about the charity’s work. The target for the two year partnership £2 million. About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. Home Retail Group raises £550,000 for BHF in six months Advertisement
Virgin Money Foundation opens first grants round Tagged with: Funding North East Howard Lake | 14 August 2015 | News The Virgin Money Foundation has announced its first round of funding, which is open to organisations that achieve long term impact in communities in the North East of England.The funding will be for organisations that:• enable homeless people or people at risk of homelessness to find a home, especially through increasing the supply of affordable rented properties.• provide opportunities for youth education, training and enterprise.• create and support community and social enterprise.• fund feasibility studies into larger capital projects that will bring people and money into a deprived community.Applications are invited for funding from £10,000 to £50,000 from organisations working in the local authority areas of Darlington, Durham, Gateshead, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland, Redcar and Cleveland, South Tyneside, Stockton on Tees, and Sunderland.Grants are for running costs, not capital costs. They are for one year only.The closing date for applications to the Virgin Money Foundation’s first funding round is 28 September 2015.The Foundation, the creation of which was announced last year, will subsequently extend its funding activities across the UK.“Not enough” says Labour MPThe North East of England was where the Northern Rock Foundation was active before it closed. Virgin Money took over the Northern Rock bank following its nationalisation in 2012 following the financial crisis of 2008.Chi Onwurah, Labour MP for Newcastle Upon Tyne, criticised the amount being provided by Virgin Money Foundation, contrasting it with the work of the Northern Rock Foundation. She said:“Before it got caught up in the consequences of casino type financial speculation, Northern Rock reflected the values of the North East by generously investing in local good causes. I would like to see Virgin Money do the same.” Advertisement AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis 24 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.
Rumors of White House Action on RFS False Facebook Twitter By Gary Truitt – Mar 1, 2017 Facebook Twitter SHARE Corn and soybean futures spiked sharply higher on Tuesday based on rumors that President Trump was going to issue an executive order that would incrase the demand for ethanol and biofuel products. This had been reported by several media organizations. Late Tuesday afternoon, however, a leading industry organization said the rumors were false. Growth Energy thanks the White House for putting a stop to the circulating rumors that an alleged “deal” had been made to change the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) point of obligation. Tuesday afternoon the White House confirmed to several media outlets that no executive order is imminent.“We look forward to a constructive, ongoing dialogue with this administration and lawmakers on Capitol Hill about policies that will continue to uphold what has been the nation’s most successful energy policy, reducing oil imports and cutting transportation-related emissions,” Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor said. “Under the RFS, the point of obligation – which obligates oil refiners to blend renewable fuel into our transportation fuel supply – is working as intended and is making sure that consumers have a choice of fuel at the gas pump. President Trump has voiced a strong commitment to the RFS and continued progress for homegrown fuels, and we are heartened by the White House’s quick efforts to silence these rumors. We look forward to a constructive dialogue with the administration on biofuel policy.” Home Energy Rumors of White House Action on RFS False SHARE Previous articleGrowth Energy Denounces Illegitimate Efforts to Rewrite RFSNext articlePOTUS Rolls Back WOTUS Gary Truitt
Twitter Three factors driving Donegal housing market – Robinson Pinterest Newsx Adverts Almost 10,000 appointments cancelled in Saolta Hospital Group this week Facebook LUH system challenged by however, work to reduce risk to patients ongoing – Dr Hamilton WhatsApp Facebook Worldwide interest for Donegal BOGOF house deal RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR WhatsApp Guidelines for reopening of hospitality sector published Calls for maternity restrictions to be lifted at LUH Business Matters Ep 45 – Boyd Robinson, Annette Houston & Michael Margey Google+ A Donegal estate agent, who is offering a buy one get one free deal for new houses in Letterkenny and Milford, has said there have been enquiries about the properties from all over the world.Letterkenny-based estate agent Brendan McGlynn says he has been inundated with enquiries about the BOGOF deal.Speaking earlier on the Shaun Doherty Show Mr McGlynn gave the back ground to the idea:[podcast]http://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/house.mp3[/podcast] By News Highland – September 12, 2011 Pinterest Google+ Previous articleStorm update: Winds begin to ease but many are still left without powerNext article‘Spoilt Brat’ budding rugby star escapes jail sentence News Highland Twitter
75 positive cases of Covid confirmed in North Further drop in people receiving PUP in Donegal Man arrested on suspicion of drugs and criminal property offences in Derry Facebook 365 additional cases of Covid-19 in Republic Homepage BannerNews RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Google+ WhatsApp By admin – May 31, 2015 Twitter Main Evening News, Sport and Obituaries Tuesday May 25th Concerns have been raised following figures published under the Common Agricultural Scheme regarding payment to farmers.Figures released show that farmers in Donegal received over 85 million euro in payments last year.Over the past few days, the Department of Agriculture began publishing figures for every county.Farmers paid above €1,250 have their names published.Donegal IFA Environment Chairman, P.J. McMonagle says the publication will put farming families under threat:Audio Playerhttp://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pj6-.mp300:0000:0000:00Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume. WhatsApp Pinterest Previous articleHarps and Longford to do it again on Monday NightNext articleSuper Cockhill are through to the third round of the FAI Cup admin Gardai continue to investigate Kilmacrennan fire Twitter Pinterest Google+ Concerns raised following figures published by the Common Agricultural Scheme Facebook
ColumnsBroader Implications Of The Supreme Court ‘s Pandurang Judgment On Co-operative Banks Abhilash Agrawal26 May 2020 12:37 AMShare This – xIn a judgment pronounced by a five judge bench in the case of Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Limited(“Pandurang”), the apex court has ruled that Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI”) is, in fact, applicable to Co-operative Banks. Apart from the obvious effect of opening…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?LoginIn a judgment pronounced by a five judge bench in the case of Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Limited(“Pandurang”), the apex court has ruled that Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI”) is, in fact, applicable to Co-operative Banks. Apart from the obvious effect of opening up SARFAESI benefits to such Co-operative Banks attempting to affect recovery, there are broader implications flowing from the judgment which need to be appreciated. Preliminary Before delving into the implications, it is important to sketch out the factual and jurisprudential matrix preceding the judgment on 5th May, 2020. Co-operative Banks are regulated under respective State Legislations dealing with the governance of Co-operative Societies, for example Section 2(10) of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 defines a “Co-operative Bank” (“Co-operative Banks”) and under the Multi-State Co-Operative Societies Act, 2002 under which Section 3(f) contains the definition for the bank (“Multi-State Co-operative Banks”). The obvious distinction between the two being that the latter deals with such banks with objects not confined to one State and serving the interests of members in more than one State. By an amendment made to the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (“BR Act”) in 1965 (Act 23 of 1965), Section 56 was inserted which made the BR Act applicable on Co-operative Banks, later including Multi-State Co-Operative Banks as well. In 2003, vide a notification issued under Section 2(1)(c)(v) to include Co-operative Banks within the ambit of “Bank” under SARAESI. Further, in 2013, Section 2(1)(c)(iva) was inserted into the SARFAESI and it expanded the definition of a Bank to include “a multi-State co-operative Bank” within its ambit. These were later challenged in the Pandurang case. In the year 2007, Supreme Court through a three judge Bench decision in the case of Greater Bombay Coop. Bank v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and Ors.(“Greater Bombay”)had declared that Co-operative Banks weren’t in fact “Banking Companies” under Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1965 (“BR Act”) and therefore, not eligible to invoke recovery proceedings under RDB Act. In 2008, using this ratio, Pandurang Ganpati Chougule had sought to challenge the decision of a Co-operative Bank to institute SARFAESI proceedings against him by arguing that Co-operative Banks are not covered within the definition of “Bank” under SARFAESI Act, and were not eligible to make use of measures available under it. In the Pandurang case, it has been held that all Co-operative Banks, single state and multi-state, are in fact covered within the definition of “Banking Company” under Section 5(c) of BR Act, and would be therefore covered within the definition of “Bank” under Section 2(1)(c)(i)read with Section 2(1)(d)of the SARFAESI ACT, allowing them to make use of recovery measures available therein. I will deal with the reasoning employed at a later stage in this article. Implications Only Centre can make laws on Banking Business Entry 45 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India (“Union List”) deals with “Banking”, and Entry 32 of List II the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India (“State List”) deals with incorporation, regulation and winding up of, inter alia, co-operative societies. In Greater Bombay, the court had held that since “Co-operative Societies” are governed under Entry 32 of the State List, Central Laws such as SARFAESI and RDB will not be applicable on them, and recovery measures will have to be undertaken as per the provisions of respective State legislations dealing with the matter. In Pandurang, the bench has drawn a distinction between the “Banking” and the “Non-banking” functions that these Banks, as Co-operative societies, perform. It was observed that, “In the matter of licensing and doing business, a deep and pervasive control is carved out under the provisions of the BR Act, 1949 and banking activity done by any entity, primary credit societies, is a bank and is required to submit the accounts to the Reserve Bank of India, and there is complete control under the aforesaid Act. For activity of banking, these banks are governed by the legislation under Entry 45 of List I.” Hence, these two entries are mutually exclusive, and grant specific separate jurisdictions to the Central and State Governments to frame laws. So, while states have absolute prerogative governing the aspects of Co-operative Banks covered by Entry 32 of List II, the court has held that the entire gamut of “Banking” activity conducted by such banks will be covered under Entry 45 of List I, and thus will be governed by Central Laws. “Recovery” is an essential core part of Banking Business has been reaffirmed In the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Ors. case (“Delhi High Court Bar Association”), a three judge bench of the court had upheld the Centre’s legislative competence to promulgate the RDB Act (then known as the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993), by observing that the Entry 45 would include “all aspects of banking including ancillary or subsidiary matters relating to banking” and hence will include “recovery”, allowing the Central Government to frame laws dealing with the same exclusively. This ruling has been reaffirmed in Pandurang, and the court has held that the aspect of “recovery” is a core and essential part of “Banking” as covered by Entry 45 of List II, and is therefore to be governed under Central Laws, such as the RDB Act and the SARFAESI Act. Co-operative Banks are “Banking Companies” under BR Act Greater Bombay, in which it was held that Co-operative Banks were not “banking companies” under BR Act and were therefore not eligible to opt for measures under the RDB Act, was based on the reasoning that since “Co-operative Banks” were not defined within Section 5(c) of BR Act, but in fact through a separate addition under Section 56 made via an amendment to the BR Act in 1965(Act 23 of 1965),”Parliament was simply assigning a meaning to words; it was not incorporating or even referring to the substantive provisions of the BR Act.” It concluded that it was never the intention of Parliament to extend the provisions of RDB Act to Co-operative Banks, since at the time of its passing, the legislature was aware that Section 2(d) of the RDB Act, defining “bank”, will not include Co-operative Banks and Section 2(e) defining “banking company” would have its definition limited to what was covered under Section 5(c) of the BR Act; which, in its opinion, again will not include Co-operative Banks Finding this reasoning to be erroneous, in Pandurang the Bench observed that even though the definition of Co-operative Banks existed in a different part of the statute, Section 56(a) amends the definition of a “Banking Company” under Section 5(c), since Section 56(a)(i) reads “throughout this act…references to a “banking company” or “the company” or “such company” shall be construed as references to a co-operative bank.” By virtue of this, “Section 56(a) amends the definition of the ‘banking company,’ and it becomes an integral part of Section 5(c), as the full effect is required to be given.” Thus, Co-operative Banks are covered within the definition of “Banking Company.” RDB Act and SARFAESI Act are applicable on Co-operative Banks While Pandurang obviously opens SARFAESI for Co-operative Banks, we observe that the reasoning employed will affect applicability of RDB on them as well. While Section 2(d)(vi) of RDB already included Multi-state Co-operative Banks within the ambit of “bank”. But we have also seen above, that Multi-state Co-operative Banks are included in the definition of a “Banking Company” by virtue of being a part of Section 56 of the BR Act. Both Section 2(d)(i) of RDB Act and Section 2(1)(c)(i) of SARFAESI Act include “banking company” within the definition of “Bank”. Further, under Section 2(e) of RDB and Section 2(d) of SARFAESI, definition of such “banking company” “shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.” Having affirmed in Pandurang that Section 5(c) of BR Act does include “Co-operative” banks through Section 56(a)(i) of the same act, both RDB Act and SARFAESI Act become applicable on Co-operative Banks. Specifically for SARFAESI, the court also considered a scenario where even if Section 5(c) were not to include Co-operative Banks, even then Section 2(1)(c)(v) of SARFAESI allows for the definition of ‘bank’ to include “such other bank which the Central Government may, by notification, specify for the purposes of this Act.” The same has been done by the Government by virtue of a notification issued on 28.1.2003. Ex Abundanti Cautela In Paragraph 85, the court has observed that by virtue of doctrine of incorporation, Co-operative Societies/Banks (both single state and multi state) stand included in Section 5(1)(c), and that the notification issued in 2003 as well as the amendment made in 2013 were ex abundanti cautela. “By virtue of Section 56(a), co-operative banks, as defined in Section 56(cci) of the BR Act, 1949, are included in Section 5(c). Similarly, Multi-state Co-operative Banks were also covered.”[Emphasis mine] It is my humble submission that while Section 2(d)(vi) of RDB Act was added by the 2013 amending act to include “multi-state co-operative banks” within the definition of “bank” under Section 2(d), considering these banks are already included in the definition of a “banking company” under Section 5(c) of BR Act, by virtue of Section 56(a) of the BR Act, it therefore automatically becomes a “bank” under Section 2(d)(i) and the 2013 amendment was, again, ex abundanti cautela. Greater Bombay stands overruled With the decision of Pandurang, the apex court has also effectively overruled the decision of Greater Bombay, whose ratio was based entirely upon the idea that Co-operative Banks aren’t covered within the definition of “banking company” under BR Act. Hence, both RDB Act and SARFAESI Act can be employed by Co-operative Banks, both single state and multi state, in their attempt to affect recovery. State Laws on Recovery are inapplicable henceforth Several state legislations dealing with Co-operative Societies, such as Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, or Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 provide for recovery measures for Co-operative Banks. For example, under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, any dispute relating to constitution, management or business is required to be referred to a Co-operative court, Recovery Certificate is obtained and execution of it under Section 156 is delegated to Bank Officers, at which stage it rather becomes similar in essence to a Section 13(4) Possession Notice under SARFAESI. Since it has been established that recovery is a part of the core essential business of Banking under Entry 45 of List I, and the regulation of such business is the sole prerogative of the Central Government, a question arises as to the fate of the recovery measures allowed for by State Legislatures governing Cooperatives. To my understanding, the holding of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra Kantilal Shah v. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies(which was overruled by the apex court in Greater Bombay) that with the coming of the RDB Act, state legislations cease to have jurisdiction to entertain the application submitted by co-operative banks for the recovery of their dues, stands affirmed. Since recovery can only be covered under Entry 45 of List I and not under Entry 32 of List II, the extant state laws, to the extent that they deal with recovery, are ultra vires, and are no longer applicable. Views Are Personal Only.  The notification erroneously refers to Co-operative Banks as defined under “Section 5(cci)” of BR Act, instead of “Section 56(cci)”. The irony being, had Co-operative Banks been defined under Section 5 as has been incorrectly printed there, the requirement of issuing such a notification would have been rendered infructuous.  Enforcement of Security Deposit and Debts Law, Act 1 of 2013.  (2007) 6 SCC 236.  (2002) 4 SCC 275  The notification erroneously refers to Co-operative Banks as defined under “Section 5(cci)” of BR Act, instead of “Section 56(cci)”. The irony being, had Co-operative Banks been defined under Section 5 as has been incorrectly printed there, the requirement of issuing such a notification would have been rendered infructuous.  Pandurang at Para 85.  AIR 2004 Bom 166. Overruled in Greater Bombay, supra note 3. Next Story
Facebook Twitter By News Highland – August 2, 2019 Harps come back to win in Waterford Loganair’s new Derry – Liverpool air service takes off from CODA Google+ Homepage BannerNews WhatsApp DL Debate – 24/05/21 Google+ Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows The former British paratrooper charged in respect of Bloody Sunday is due to appear at Derry Courthouse on September 18th for committal proceedings.The soldier, known only as Lance Corporal “F” is to be prosecuted for Murder, Attempted Murder and Wounding With Intent.Madden and Finucane Solicitors, who represent a number of the wounded and the families of those killed, say their clients have been formally notified of the date by a senior lawyer within the Public ProsecutionService.At this stage, they say it is not known if Lance Corporal “F” intends to challenge the prosecution evidence at Committal.____________________Statement in full -Madden & Finucane represent the following victims in respect of whom Lance Corporal “F”is to be prosecuted for Murder, Attempted Murder and Wounding With Intent: the family ofWilliam McKinney (deceased), the family of Patsy O’Donnell (wounded, now deceased), JoeFriel (wounded), Michael Quinn (wounded) and Joe Mahon (wounded). Lance Corporal F isalso charged with the murder of James Wray.Ciaran Shiels, solicitor, this morning confirmed:“Our clients have been formally notified by a senior lawyer within the Public ProsecutionService that the Committal proceedings in respect of the prosecution of Lance Corporal “F”now have a first listing date fixed for Wednesday 18th September 2019 at Bishop StreetCourthouse in Derry.“Outstanding material that was required from the PSNI to finalise the court papers has nowbeen received by the PPS.“We understand that those papers are now being finalised and will be served on the formersoldier’s defence lawyers.“At this stage it is not known if Lance Corporal “F” intends to challenge the prosecutionevidence at Committal.“We understand that there will be a further update from the PPS in this regard closer to thehearing.“We have been further advised that arrangements are in place to facilitate the attendance offamily members and victims by the NI court service.” Previous articleFallen walker rescued from Banba’s Crown, MalinNext articleSatellite clubs to help development of gymnastics in Donegal News Highland Twitter Pinterest RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR “Soldier F” to appear in court on September 18th News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th Pinterest Facebook Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic WhatsApp
Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed. Case round-upOn 8 Jul 2003 in Personnel Today Caseround-up by Eversheds 020 7919 4500Post-employmentdiscriminationRelaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper & other appeals, House of Lords [19June 2003] All ER(D)258Followingthis case, employers can now be held liable for acts of post-termination sex,race and disability discrimination. These three appeals concerned the issue ofwhether ex-staff could claim to have suffered a ‘detriment’ for the respectivepurposes of sex, race and disability discrimination legislation, in relation totheir employers’ conduct after the termination of employment. TheCourt of Appeal ruled in these cases that acts or events occurring afteremployment had ended could not amount to unlawful discrimination. The staff ineach case appealed against this decision.TheLords ruled that an employer could be held liable for acts of post-terminationdiscrimination. The proper interpretation of the legislation was that once twopeople enter into an employer/employee relationship, it is intended for theworker to be protected against discrimination by the employer in respect of allcircumstances arising from that relationship.Itmakes no sense to draw an arbitrary line between the time when the employmentcontract is in place, thereby providing the worker with protection againstdiscrimination, and the time when the contract ends, leaving them with none.However, the act must arise out of the employment relationship. One worker losthis appeal as his complaint related to his employer’s failure to comply with atribunal’s reinstatement order, which hadn’t arisen from the workingrelationship. TheRace Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which is due to come intoforce on 19 July, will make post-termination racial discrimination andharassment unlawful.Noprotection for sexual orientationMacdonald v Advocate General for Scotland; Pearce v Governing Body ofMayfield School, House of Lords [19 June 2003] All ER(D) 259TheHouse of Lords has ruled that less favourable treatment by employers on thebasis of a worker’s sexual orientation does not amount to discrimination on thegrounds of sex for the purposes of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.Thecourt considered two similar appeals. Pearce, a schoolteacher, regularlysuffered abuse from pupils for being a lesbian. She claimed that the school haddirectly discriminated against her under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, byfailing to take adequate steps to prevent the abuse. Similarly, Macdonald wasforced to resign from the RAF after disclosing his homosexuality. He claimedhis employers had treated him less favourably than they would have treated awoman, in that a female comparator (a heterosexual woman) would not have beenforced to resign. He claimed this amounted to discrimination under the SexDiscrimination Act 1975. Bothappealed to the House of Lords against decisions dismissing their complaints.TheLords dismissed their appeals. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was not aimed atsexual orientation and the expression ‘on the grounds of her sex’ in section 1of the Act could not be interpreted to include sexual orientation. In bothcases, the Lords stated the appropriate comparator was a homosexual of theopposite sex, not a heterosexual. Pearce’sadditional argument that the name-calling would not have been directed at herhad she been a man, and that she therefore didn’t need to identify acomparator, was rejected. The courtcommented the harassment was not aimed at her sex, but rather her sexualorientation.
View post tag: Holiday November 12, 2012 View post tag: News by topic View post tag: USS As Sailors and their families get ready for the upcoming holiday season, the leadership of the amphibious assault ship USS Makin Island (LHD 8) kicked off a safe driving campaign with the construction of a powerful display on the pier near the ship, Nov. 6.Personnel from Makin Island’s Safety department coordinated the delivery and placement of a wrecked Sport Utility Vehicle on the pier to remind Sailors not to drink and drive, not to text and drive, and to follow the rules of the road during the upcoming holiday season. “The point of the display is to raise awareness that drunk driving, texting and driving, and distracted driving have serious consequences,” said Lt. Harriet Johnson, Makin Island’s safety officer.Johnson said she hopes Makin Island Sailors will take time to think about their own driving habits, as well as take an extra moment to help prevent accidents during the holiday season.According to the Naval Safety Center’s website, 42 Sailors were killed in privately owned vehicle accidents during fiscal year 2012. “I hope that people see the extent of the damage done to the car and understand what can happen when bad decisions are made behind the wheel,” said Aviation Ordnanceman 2nd Class Brandon Starkey, assigned to Makin Island’s safety department.Starkey said he worked with a local towing company to find the vehicle, which was wrecked Labor Day weekend, and bring it to the ship. He said he hopes it will be a blunt reminder for Sailors to make good decisions when driving. “Safe driving is a year round concern,” said Starkey. “But around the holidays, it is especially important to get the word out.”Improving readiness and safety are two key elements of the Secretary of the Navy’s 21st Century Sailor and Marine initiative.Makin Island recently returned from a seven-month deployment and was the first U.S. Navy ship to deploy using a hybrid-electric propulsion system. By using this unique propulsion system, the ship saved over $15 million in fuel costs and the Navy expects to see fuel cost savings of more than $250 million, over the course of the ship’s lifecycle. Lessons learned during Makin Island’s maiden deployment prove the Navy’s commitment to energy awareness and conservation, and will positively influence future ship designs for several decades.This initiative is one of many throughout the Navy and Marine Corps that will enable the Department of the Navy to achieve the Secretary of the Navy’s energy goals to improve our energy security and efficiency afloat and ashore, increase our energy independence and help lead the nation toward a clean energy economy.[mappress]Naval Today Staff, November 12, 2012 View post tag: Season View post tag: during Back to overview,Home naval-today Leadership of USS Makin Island Stresses Responsible Driving During the Holiday Season View post tag: Naval View post tag: Navy View post tag: Island View post tag: Responsible Leadership of USS Makin Island Stresses Responsible Driving During the Holiday Season View post tag: driving Training & Education View post tag: Stresses View post tag: Leadership View post tag: Makin Share this article