Share Share 21 Views no discussions Photo credit: autovisuals.comYamada Parker of Marigot has been fined $1000.00 for stealing a battery from his employer.Parker was arrested and charged for theft of a vehicle battery from his employer sometime between 30th July and 31st August, 2012.During investigation into the incident, Parker informed the police that the battery had been in his possession for at least five months. He was arrested on suspicion of theft and taken into custody at the Marigot Police Station.When questioned by Police, Parker informed officers that the item was not stolen.“I did not really steal the battery; it was there so I took it“If I wanted to steal it I would hide it,” he said.As part of his mitigation plea, Parker was given the opportunity to apologize to his supervisor.“I ask you to forgive me and I will never do it again,” he stated. Magistrate Candia Carette- George issued a very stern warning to the defendant and reminded him of the need to respect the property of others.“If someone says to you cannot have or take, don’t do it “I can see the embarrassment on your face and know that it will not be done again,” she said.Given that it was his first offence, Parker received a small fine which must be paid by 31st January, 2013 or in default of payment will serve two months imprisonment. Dominica Vibes News Tweet Share LocalNews Vehicle battery stealer gets small fine by: – December 12, 2012 Sharing is caring!
After serving the judiciary for more than three decades, Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Jose Calayag Reyes Jr. retires on Friday (Sept. 18) when he turns 70, the mandatory retirement age for judges and justices. Jose Calayag Reyes Jr.(SC / MANILA BULLETIN)He was a trial court judge for 16 years, an associate justice of the Court of Appeals (CA) for 15 years, and SC magistrate for a little more than two years.Before his stint as a judge and as a justice, and even before becoming a lawyer, Reyes worked with the SC as a technical assistant and later, after passing the bar, as a court attorney.The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) — the constitutionally mandated office that accepts, screens, and nominates appointments to the judiciary — has named seven nominees to Reyes’ post.Nominated were Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and CA Associate Justices Ricardo De Rivera Rosario, Ramon A. Cruz, Japar B. Dimaampao, Jhosep Y. Lopez, Eduardo B. Peralta Jr., and Maria Filomena D. Singh.President Duterte has 90 days from September 18 to appoint Reyes’ replacement.Last Tuesday, the judiciary – led by Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta – honored Reyes during a retirement ceremony.Justice Reyes, who hails from Tacloban City, finished his pre law and law degree both in San Beda College.He is an academician being a professor at the College of Business and Economics in De La Salle University for the past four decades.His bio-data at the SC website stated that De La Salle University awarded him as the Most Outstanding Part-Time Faculty for School Year 2001-2002.He was also given the Juan Medrano Service Award for dedicated service in the mission of Christian Education and long-term contribution as a La Sallian co-worker and partner.Also, he has been a professorial Lecturer of the Philippine Judicial Academy, Remedial Law Department, since 2008.Despite his tedious career in the judiciary, Justice Reyes has been and is still active in church and community service.Reyes’ bio-data also showed that among his church and community service endeavors are as an active eucharistic minister of Villa San Miguel Chapel in Mandaluyong City; team leader of the Christian Life Program of Couples for Christ in the Court of Appeals; a Christian Life Program speaker in courts and government offices under the Moral Recovery Program of the government; a board member of the Couples for Christ St. Thomas More and Associates Ministry that advocates good governance and good citizenship; an alumnus of the John Haggai Institute, Mid-Pacific Center, Kihei, Hawaii, United States of America that conducts evangelization training for Christian leaders; and a Luzon North Deputy and Supreme Director of the Knights of Columbus. SIGN UP TO DAILY NEWSLETTERCLICK HERE TO SIGN-UP
Arnold Dsouza COMMENT First Published: 15th May, 2020 18:11 IST LIVE TV The internet is here to stay!https://t.co/S5LG0BUsXO pic.twitter.com/DS0zvVVz7P— Magnus Carlsen (@MagnusCarlsen) May 14, 2020 ALSO READ: Online Chess: Viswanathan Anand Rested As India Lose To ChinaMagnus Carlsen IQ: Magnus Carlsen Online Chess TourChess grandmaster Magnus Carlsen recently announced the launch of the ‘Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour’ on May 14. The 29-year-old Norwegian created an invitational online chess tournament last month for fans with the total prize money of $250,000. The aim was to keep fans at home occupied during the coronavirus lockdown. The online chess tournament began on April 18 and ended on May 3 as Magnus Carlsen himself won the inaugural tournament. However, fans weren’t too surprised with the results given the Magnus Carlsen IQ is considerably higher in comparison to an average human.ALSO READ: GM Iniyan To Organise ‘Chess Marathon’ To Raise Funds For COVID-19 ReliefMagnus Carlsen standings: Magnus Carlsen Online Chess TourAccording to ScoopWhoop, the Magnus Carlsen IQ clocks in at 190. The staggering Magnus Carlsen IQ puts him in the category of the top 20 smartest people in the world. Magnus Carlsen’s peak classical rating of 2882 is the highest in history and the Chess World No 1 recently broke the record for the longest unbeaten streak, making it 111 games without defeat.ALSO READ: Over 25 Grandmaster To Take Part In Indian Chess League From May 15Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour: Schedule for online chess TourFollowing the success of the first online chess tour, Magnus Carlsen now wants to combine three more online chess tournaments – including the Magnus Carlsen invitational last month – to create an astonishing prize fund of $1 million for the final winner. This will be the highest ever reward for winning an online chess tour and the finals will take place between August 9-20. The top four players from the inaugural chess tournament will qualify for the next ‘major’. Carlsen, along with Hikaru Nakamura, Ding Liren, and Alireza Firouzja will feature in the next major online chess tournament. Here is the schedule for the three major online chess tours including the final: Lindores Abbey Rapid Challenge (May 19-June 3) – $150,000Online Chess Masters (June 20-July 5) – $150,000Legends of Chess (July 21 -August 5) – $150,000Grand Final (August 9-20) – $300,000Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour: Magnus Carlsen online chess tour finaleWinners of the individual tournaments will progress through to the grand final. The $250,000 from the invitational chess tournament will be added to the prize money for the other four tournaments. The total prize money for the winner of the final will be a staggering $1 million. ALSO READ: Online Chess: Viswanathan Anand Rested As India Lose To China Last Updated: 15th May, 2020 18:11 IST Magnus Carlsen Reveals Next Move To Launch A New Era Of $1 Million Online Chess Tour Chess grandmaster Magnus Carlsen is prepared to combine four online chess tournaments and reward the winner with a staggering $1 million prize. World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen is set to boost the popularity of his sport amid the coronavirus lockdown. It is reported that the ‘Magnus Carlsen Online Chess Tour’ will combine the four major online chess tournaments with the grand finale set to take place in August later this year. The prize money for the Magnus Carlsen chess tour would amount up to a whopping $1 million – the highest reward for winning an online chess tournament. SUBSCRIBE TO US WATCH US LIVE FOLLOW US Written By
A cursory research would reveal that freedom of the press is generally defined as the right to circulate opinions in print without censorship by the Government.Freedom of the media is understood to be the freedom of communication and expression through various mediums, such as electronic media and published materials.Freedom of expression is the right to express one’s ideas and opinions freely through speech, writing, and other forms of communication, but without deliberately causing harm to others’ character and/or reputation by false or misleading statements. Freedom of the press is also part of freedom of expression.Even if a more extensive research is conducted, it would not change the basic tenets of what constitute the freedoms alluded to. These are not only enshrined, but have been growing across this evolving world, reaching places once considered impossible. With the aid of evolving technology, which continues to enlighten and empower, its global spread is unstoppable, and consolidates with every passing day.Unfortunately, there are still parts of the world where freedom is yearned for. For those who have attained and experienced freedom, the sense of empowerment and identity it precipitates is beyond belief. In such circumstances, a return to what originally obtain could never be contemplated.Here, in Guyana, an extensive period of post-colonial rule has been marred by oppression, when the most basic of freedoms — the right to express one’s self — was cruelly taken away. That was not only physically done in many instances, but the prevailing repression and persecution inundated our minds with fear; fear to publicly identify with the overflowing desire to break the shackles of domination. Eventually, as the old cliché of time offering hope would bestow, the freedom of expression and the media returned, after almost three decades. What followed over the years was unprecedented; a plethora of media entities of various mediums was established across the country.The right to expression then mirrored that of the free world — the bastion of democracy. In this once oppressed nation, through the newly established media houses, both print and electronic, criticisms which were often extremely harsh of the Government were unleashed, and became not only acceptable, but a norm. It was unheard of up to that point, and any suggestion of a semblance of muzzling through the articulation or writing of anyone was met with robust unified and widespread condemnation.That exemplified a transition in mindset, from one that was forced to be fearful to one that was not prepared to relinquish freedom. It also exemplifies the empowerment freedom brings to a nation and its people.That is why the recently passed Broadcast Amendment Bill is seen by many as a wanton attempt to infringe and erode that hard-earned freedom. Even if one were to see it from the Government’s perspective, the mere enshrining of a right by the authority, under the guise of public service announcements (PSA), to dictate to the media what must be broadcast, and when, is a direct violation of what constitutes freedom of the media.The fear started in the public domain over this Bill, which is awaiting assent by the President, is profoundly real. Given that these freedoms are enshrined, the constitutionality of the current Bill cannot escape scrutiny.Is the action of the Government, through the Bill, a manifestation of them fearing criticism through public airwaves? If not, is the imposition of what to broadcast and when an attempt to garner free mitigation of criticism through Government’s preferred content? At a conservative rate, one hour per day for an entire year can accrue to about ten million dollars. That is what broadcasters would be prevented from potentially earning for the slot they have to free up. In that context, one can easily regard the Bill as trampling on the right to earn. Clearly, one way or the other, the Bill infringes on rights.What has become heartening is the swift response by at least two international bodies, the International Press Institute (IPI) and Reporters Without Borders, urging the Administration to review and consult. The glaring lack of consultation during the crafting of the Bill, and the fact that the Bill has been introduced by an Administration which is, by and large, the same as that during the oppressive period, exacerbates the fear.The media establishments, and by extension the workers, that stand to be affected by the consequences of the Bill would be hopeful that the red flags raised would become noticeable by both civil society here and the international community, seen as the protector of such freedoms. If the pronouncements of the International Press Institute (IPI) and Reporters Without Borders are any indication, then it appears that the wind may be blowing the flags from obscurity. Even with such hope, the history of what transpired over the infamous three-decade period teaches a different and haunting lesson. Consultation, followed by redrafting, can therefore thwart a repetition of the nation’s history. Was that history a lesson learnt?