Francis Kong, Jason Magbanua headline ‘The School for the Passionate, New Bold U 2020’ LOOK: Taal Volcano island 2 days after eruption No need to wear face masks in Metro Manila, says scientist Taal Volcano’s lava fountain weakens, but Phivolcs says it’s not sign of slowing down Negros Occidental gov’t, church call for prayers for safety of Taal evacuees MOST READ Ruth Chepngetich won the women’s race in a sluggish 2hr 32min 43sec — 17 minutes outside Paula Radcliffe’s then world record — while 28 of the 68 starters failed to finish.The men’s race was held in cooler conditions but Lelisa Desisa’s winning time of 2hr 10min 40sec was over nine minutes slower than the world record.“We have been working closely with the IOC and Tokyo 2020 on the potential weather conditions at next year’s Olympic Games and will continue to work with the IOC and Tokyo 2020 on the proposal to move the road events to Sapporo,” said International Amateur Athletics Federations’ President Sebastian Coe.“Giving athletes the best platform for their performances within the environment they are in is central to all major events.“We will work with the organizers to create the very best marathon and race walk courses for next year’s Olympic Games.”Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Daybreak as smoke, ash billows from Taal volcano PLAY LIST 01:04Daybreak as smoke, ash billows from Taal volcano01:05Poor visibility, nakaapekto sa maraming lugar sa Batangas03:028,000 pulis sa Region 4-A, tuloy ang trabaho03:57Phivolcs, nahihirapan sa komunikasyon sa Taal01:04Sold-out: Stores run out of face masks after Taal spews ash01:45Iran police shoot at those protesting plane shootdown Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Defending champion Raptors experimenting after departures View comments Taal Volcano eruption: House to develop rehab plan for Batangas, Cavite, Laguna LOOK: Chilling Adventures of Sabrina Part 3 takes you straight to hell with a Music Video and First Look-Images The plan to change to change the location of the events has yet to be rubberstamped.The initiative will need the backing of all of the major stakeholders, notably the host city Tokyo, the national Olympic committees and the relevant broadcasters.The IOC Coordination Commission for Tokyo 2020 will dedicate a special session in its meeting in Tokyo at the end of the month to measures to deal with the heat.When Tokyo last hosted the Olympics in 1964 the marathon — won by the great Ethiopian Abebe Bikila — was run at 1:00pm but that was in the month of October, not August as will be the case next year.At the recent world championships in Doha, both marathons started at midnight but the heat and humidity still presented massive problems.ADVERTISEMENT In Sapporo, more than 800 kilometers (500 miles) further north, they would be five to six degrees cooler during the day.“Athletes’ health and well-being are always at the heart of our concerns,” IOC President Thomas Bach said in a statement.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSAndray Blatche has high praise for teammate Kai SottoSPORTSBig differenceSPORTSAlmazan status stays uncertain ahead of Game 4“The new far-reaching proposals to move the marathon and race walking events show how seriously we take such concerns.“The Olympic Games are the platform where athletes can give ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ performances, and these measures ensure they have the conditions to give their best.” Andray Blatche has high praise for teammate Kai Sotto LATEST STORIES FILE – Athletes compete in the women’s race of the Marathon Grand Championship, which is also the marathon test event for the upcoming Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, in Tokyo on September 15, 2019. (Photo by CHARLY TRIBALLEAU / AFP)The marathon and race walks at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics could be moved to Sapporo where temperatures will be “significantly lower”, the International Olympic Committee said on Wednesday.The IOC is considering the move because temperatures in Tokyo during the July 24-August 9 Games could reach the high 30s Celsius.ADVERTISEMENT
Dear Editor,Conversations with Guyanese in the Diaspora and in Guyana reveal that the People’s National Congress (PNC) and its leader, President David Granger want a Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) who can guarantee a PNC or coalition victory come next election. The opinion among Guyanese is the PNC feels confident it can “win” the next election without the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) and/or the Alliance For Change (AFC), as long as there is a willing partner in GECOM to facilitate a victory as happened between 1966 and 1992. Apparently, as opinions suggest, the PNC does not feel any of the Opposition’s six nominees will deliver a victory for the incumbent. Thus, all of them awee rejected. All six are qualified to serve as Chair and at least five of the six would have guaranteed a free and fair election. The other one was involved in election rigging on behalf of the PNC, but has become affiliated with the People’s Progressive Party (PPP). Thus, his loyalty in the election is questionable. It is suggested that the PNC does not wish to take a chance with him even though he rigged several elections.With regards to the rejection of all the nominees for appointment of a Chair, President Granger has not provided a reason why a very qualified nominee like Christopher Ram, for example, was unacceptable when he campaigned for the coalition in 2015, the AFC in 2011, WPA in previous elections. It is the view of lawyers and laymen that all six nominees have met the criteria as outlined in the Constitution as well as the convention established in the Carter Formula. Thus, the President should not have rejected anyone. One of the six should have been selected.One can understand why one nominee who was a candidate for the PPP in an election was rejected. One can rationalize why the President rejected Ms Rhyaan Shah because of her outspokenness against the perceived mis-governance of the coalition regime. She is not a lawyer. But she would have delivered a free and fair election that is above reproach; she is not the character who would be bullied by political parties or thugs. She is not tied to any party and has been very critical of the PPP and the coalition. She is politically neutral and wants good governance and has been advocating for a free and fair election.Lawyers, business people, politicians, professionals, and the Georgetown elite I spoke with feel Lawrence Latchmansingh would have been selected as chair as he has virtually no negatives and no baggage.He has a very clean image and has promoted fair elections through his affiliation with the Electoral Assistance Bureau. He is not publicly tied to any party. He is married to an African and raises a mixed family. His Indian identity, as being suggested by many, should not have disqualified him. He cannot be counted upon to close his eyes to or approve of rigging and that would have disqualified him. He has worked as a volunteer to ensure free and fair elections.Nevertheless, it is felt he is the ideal choice as Chair although admittedly he is not a lawyer. But he is fit and proper for the position.Chris Ram, however, is a lawyer and although not a judge, he is most qualified to be a judge. Thus, he has met Granger’s criteria of meeting the “legal background”. His negative is he is affiliated with and sympathetic to the WPA and the AFC. But he campaigned for the PNC-led coalition in 2015 and the AFC in 2011. And he was always anti PPP. But he is a democrat and cannot be relied upon to rig elections. He would not support or condone electoral fraud and no thug would bully him. This disqualifies him to be chair. Since he has been so close to the coalition, I do not think the coalition leadership would have rejected him. So of all the nominees, Ram has met the requirement of experience in law. In addition, like the others, he has met the criteria of being “fit and proper”.The President needs to explain why he considers the six nominees as not meeting the definition of fit and proper. He rejected the list and has asked for a second list of nominees. Granger needs to explain why he rejected the nominees so that the Opposition Leader can be guided accordingly in providing a second list that will not be rejected.Separately, I wish to point out that David Hinds is wrong in describing the Opposition list as “partisan”. As noted above, only one nominee (who was a candidate for the PPP) has or had affiliation with PPP which is Hinds’ primary concern. But it is most unfortunate he sees Ram, Shah and Latchmansingh as partisan PPP when these gentlemen and lady are characters of integrity and rectitude and never have affiliation with PPP.Yours faithfully,Vishnu Bisram
Dear Editor,Page 234 of the Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice states “The chief characteristics attaching to the Office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality.” These principles also apply to the Guyana National Assembly and to its Speaker, Dr Barton Scotland. The National Assembly is governed by the rules laid out in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, and the Speaker is expected to be guided by this document.At times I am convinced the Speaker unfairly targets members of the parliamentary Opposition, especially when he conveniently disregards disparaging remarks and heckling from the Government side, but is quick to reprimand one of my colleagues when they respond in kind. But I have always given the Speaker the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his interpretation of the Standing Orders, even though at times I disagree with his ruling.Now there is reason enough for me to question my own judgement, as I may not be so willing to give the Speaker a free pass again.My colleague, the honourable Bishop Juan A Edghill MP was summoned to appear before the Privileges Committee of the National Assembly on June 5, to answer charges relating to a speech he had made in Parliament which was misconstrued as misleading. I wanted to attend this hearing for two reasons: (a) to give support to my friend and colleague, Bishop Edghill and (b) as a learning-curve for me as a parliamentarian. This Committee only meets when there is a need to discipline one of its members, and so it was an educational opportunity for me to witness the Committee in action.Early that morning I called the Clerk of the National Assembly, Mr Sherlock Isaacs to indicate my interest in attending this hearing as an observer, and gave him the aforementioned reasons. He quoted Section 95 (15) of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly (Procedures in Select Committees) which reads: “Subject to this Standing Order, any member of the Assembly (not being a Member of the Committee) may attend any meeting of a Committee, but such a Member may not be able to join in the deliberations; only Members of the Committee of Privileges may attend any meeting of that Committee while the Committee is deliberating.” To my surprise, the Clerk used this section of the Standing Order to explain that only Members of the Committee of Privileges were allowed to attend this Hearing.He suggested that I call the Speaker if I have a problem with his interpretation of the Standing Order. I did! After repeating my request to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr Barton Scotland, I again emphasised the need to attend in the limited capacity as an observer. I told him of my earlier discussion with the Clerk, and the way he interpreted the Standing Order.Dr Scotland, who is also the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, admitted that he had not read that section of the Standing Order before and needed time to do so. I then took the opportunity to read him Section 95 (15) above, and he insisted that he would have to read it thoroughly before he can interpret the Standing Order to which I refer. But although he confessed to not having read this Standing Order before, he was adamant that Members of the National Assembly who are not Members of the Committee of Privileges are not allowed to attend these meetings. When I insisted that Section 95 (15) of the Standing Orders gives me the right to attend, the Speaker informed me that even though the interpretation may be different, he will not be the one to break from tradition.At 11:07h that morning, I received a call from a staff member of the National Assembly who said she was calling on behalf of the Speaker to advise that “You will not be allowed to attend the Committee of Privileges”. This decision, I‘m sure, was taken after the Speaker read Standing Orders Section 95 (15) as he said he would.Editor, I am not a lawyer, but anyone would conclude that Standing Orders Section 95 (15) gives me and every Member of Parliament the right to attend any meeting of the Committee of Privileges, except that a Member who is not a Member of that Committee cannot stay during the deliberations. And I made this quite clear to both the Clerk and the Speaker that I will not be around during the deliberations. Read the Standing Order yourself, it is written in layman’s language. Although a prominent legal scholar, the Speaker seems to be having difficulty with the interpretation of this Standing Order, very much like the President is having in deciding who is a ‘fit and proper’ person. Why the hypocrisy? The Speaker must be consistent in his rulings to avoid the perception of being bias. There can only be one interpretation of any Standing Order, and the Speaker does nothing to his credibility by misinterpreting any.Sincerely,Harry Gill, MP
Having been sponsored by Barclays since 2004, in 2016 the competition will be known simply as ‘The Premier League’.Premier League sources have stressed their new sponsorship strategy will not impinge on their clubs’ ability to pursue their own individual commercial models.“Barclays has been an excellent partner for the League throughout their sponsorship of the competition and we look forward to working with them in 2015/16, the final season of their title sponsorship,” a Premier League spokesman said.The Premier League did not have a title sponsor in its inaugural season of 1992-93 before signing a four-year, £12 million ($18.4m) deal with brewers Carling.Carling subsequently paid triple that initial amount to secure a four-year extension to their original deal, before Barclaycard paid £48 million for a three-year contract beginning in 2001.Barclays paid £57 million for a three-year sponsorship deal in 2004 and subsequent extensions saw the value rise to the £120 million paid for the existing three-year sponsorship in 2012.0Shares0000(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today) 0Shares0000Liverpool’s Steven Gerrard (L) is applauded off the pitch by Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho (R) during the English Premier League soccer match between Chelsea FC and Liverpool FC at Stamford Bridge in LondonLONDON, June 5- The English Premier League will not have a title sponsor from the 2016-17 season, the organisation revealed on Thursday.Keen to emulate major American sports leagues like the NBA and NFL in presenting a ‘clean’ brand, the Premier League’s bosses have decided not to seek a new main sponsor once their current deal with Barclays Bank expires.
Coral’s Dave Stevens joins the Alan Brazil Sports Breakfast to round up the latest sporting odds.Oh dear, it hasn’t been the best start for David Moyes at Sunderland has it?The Black Cats, along with win-less Stoke, sit rock-bottom of the Premier League table after claiming just one point from their opening four games of the new season.And any hope of a first win of the campaign against Everton on Monday night was quickly erased by an 11-minute hat-trick from Toffees striker Romelu Lukaku, as the Toffees continued their unbeaten start.BUT, while many are expecting this to be the year where Sunderland finally fail in the all-too regular fight for survival, the bookies are backing them to still be a top flight side next season.They are odds against 13/10 to go down, with Burnley 5/6 frontrunners, Hull City evens and West Brom 11/4.Meanwhile, Moyes is now 10/1 to be the Premier League’s first managerial casualty of the campaign.Coral is the official betting partner of the Alan Brazil Sports Breakfast
Here are the top headlines and transfer-related stories in Thursday’s newspapers…Arsenal are set to offer £25million for Barcelona midfielder Arda Turan over the summer. (The Times)Chelsea and Manchester United are both showing interest in Paris Saint-Germain midfielder Marco Verratti. (Daily Mirror)Manchester City forward Gabriel Jesus is good enough to play for Spanish giants Barcelona, according to Brazil team-mate forward Neymar. (The Sun)Former Tottenham left-back Yuri Berchiche is a target for Real Madrid. The 27-year-old did not play a single league game during his time at White Hart Lane between 2008-10. The Spaniard was loaned out to Cheltenham Town while at Spurs but is now impressing for Real Sociedad. (Marca)Stoke City striker Peter Crouch has not closed the door on his England career, Potters boss Mark Hughes has revealed. The 36-year-old has scored seven goals in 22 appearances this season and last played for the Three Lions in 2010. (Stoke Sentinel)Watford winger Steven Berghuis will return to the Hornets permanently after his loan with Feyenoord expires at the end of the season. (Watford Observer)Black Cats midfielder Sebastian Larsson will not enter discussions about a new contract until after the season has finished. (Sunderland Echo)And here are the latest talkSPORT.com headlines:Michael Ballack has told talkSPORT Arsenal and Germany playmaker Mesut Ozil could play for any of the world’s top clubs ‘if his head is right’…but insists he is too good to move to TurkeyRay Parlour believes Arsenal should stick with Petr Cech this summer and not move in to sign Joe Hart, but says the England goalkeeper would be a good fit for LiverpoolLiverpool are set to move ahead of Chelsea in the race for Ivan Perisic by submitting an offer of £30 million for the Inter Milan wingerArsenal and Manchester City target Djibril Sidibe is wary about leaving Monaco – because he doesn’t want ‘to become a substitute’.Barcelona are hoping to beat Manchester City and Tottenham to the signing of Real Madrid playmaker Isco by offering him a £17.3 million signing-on bonus should he agree a free transfer in the summer of 2018
Winner: Michael Keane (Burnley) – The ex-Manchester United man didnt look out of his depth on the international stage against top quality opponents. He was strong in the air and neat and tidy in possession of the ball. He did make one slip, but luckily wasnt punished. 8 Winner: Dele Alli (Tottenham) – Click the right arrow above to see more winners and losers from England’s defeat to Germany… – The Spurs ace look confident in an attacking midfield role hes also been playing in at club level. A series of deft touches and flick saw him link well with Jamie Vardy. His place in Englands starting XI is now almost guaranteed. Winner: Joe Hart (Torino – on loan from Manchester City) – Now plying his trade over in Serie A, the goalkeeper looked a lot more confident with the ball at his feet and made one tremendous save from Leroy Sane to stop Germany doubling their lead. He could do nothing about Podolskis brilliant strike after 69 minutes. 8 Loser: Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (Arsenal) – Like Barkley, Oxlade-Chamberlain was overlooked on the bench. While the Arsenal man collected splinters, Eric Dier stayed on the pitch for the full 90 minutes, while James Ward-Prowse made his debut in place of Jake Livermore. This is perhaps an indication the Gunners star will not be used in a deeper role for England, but also raises questions about how far down the pecking order he is for an attacking position. Loser: Eric Dier (Tottenham) – The Spurs star in no way shamed himself, but seemed a little clumsy in possession. He may have found it tough switching from centre-back at club level to central midfield on the international stage, but will need to give a better display against Lithuania if he starts. Winner: Jake Livermore (West Brom) – There were a few eyebrows raised when the Baggies midfielder made the squad and even more were lifted when he started the match. He did his chances of selection in the future no harm, though. Livermores performance was solid and kept Germany at bay for most of the match. England manager Gareth Southgate won’t be too disappointed following their 1-0 international friendly defeat to Germany.Lining up in an unfamiliar 3-4-2-1 formation, the Three Lions put on a decent display before succumbing to a second-half thunderbolt from Lukas Podolski, who was making his 130th and final appearance for Die Mannschaft.But which players impressed Southgate, and which one fluffed their lines ahead of the World Cup qualifier against Lithuania on Sunday?Click the right arrow above to see our winners and losers from England’s defeat to Germany. 8 8 8 8 8 Loser: Ross Barkley (Everton) – The Toffees star has seen his form improve since the turn of the year, grabbing five assists in nine games. This, however, was not enough to see him get a chance off the bench for the Three Lions. 8 Loser: Luke Shaw (Manchester United) – With Ryan Bertrand putting in a okay performance, it looked like a good opportunity for the left-back to get some vital game time. In the end he only got seven minutes, and was unable to showcase himself. Bertrand and Danny Rose now look like the main contenders until Shaw gets regular games at club level.
AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MOREWhy these photogenic dumplings are popping up in Los Angeles 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! As of Friday, Sept. 1, 2006, at least 2,643 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,102 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military’s numbers. The AP count is two higher than the Defense Department’s tally, last updated Friday at 7 a.m. PDT. The British military has reported 115 deaths; Italy, 32; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, El Salvador, four each; Slovakia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Romania, one death each. – Associated Press
22 1999: Christian Vieri – Lazio to Inter Milan: £32.1m 1990: Roberto Baggio – Fiorentina to Juventus: £8m 22 22 1973: Johan Cruyff – Ajax to Barcelona: £922,000 – click right to see how the transfer fee world record has been broken through the years 1982: Diego Maradona – Boca Juniors to Barcelona: £3m 2000: Luis Figo – Barcelona to Real Madrid: £37m 1997: Ronaldo – Barcelona to Inter Milan: £19.5m The world transfer record is something clubs have always taken pride in breaking over the years – and Paris Saint-Germain now sit top of the list.The Ligue 1 club have splashed out £200.6million on Neymar after agreeing to pay his release clause to Barcelona.Neymar’s deal has more than doubled the previous record, which was held by Paul Pogba when he completed his return to Manchester United in 2016.How has the most expensive deal grown over the years?Click the right arrow, above, to see how the world transfer record has changed since 1973… 22 22 1987: Ruud Gullit – PSV Eindhoven to AC Milan: £6m 22 2009: Cristiano Ronaldo – Manchester United to Real Madrid: £80m 1992: Gianluigi Lentini – Torino to AC Milan: £13m 22 2013: Gareth Bale – Tottenham to Real Madrid: £86m – The day he signed for Real Madrid must feel like a lifetime ago for Bale 1996: Alan Shearer – Blackburn Rovers to Newcastle United: £15m 22 22 1992: Gianluca Vialli – Sampdoria to Juventus: £12m 22 22 1996: Ronaldo – PSV Eindhoven to Barcelona: £13.2m 22 1984: Diego Maradona – Barcelona to Napoli: £5m 2001: Zinedine Zidane – Juventus to Real Madrid: £46.6m 2016: Paul Pogba – Juventus to Manchester United: £89m 1975: Giuseppe Savoldi – Bologna to Napoli: £1.2m 22 1992: Jean-Pierre Papin – Marseille to AC Milan: £10m 22 22 22 22 getty 1976: Paolo Rossi – Juventus to Vicenza: £1.75m 22 22 2000: Hernan Crespo – Parma to Lazio: £35.5m 22 22 1998: Denilson – Sao Paulo to Real Betis: £21.5m 22 2017: Neymar – Barcelona to Paris Saint-Germain: £200.6m
LOS ANGELES – A Superior Court judge on Thursday rejected a request by the city for a temporary restraining order that would require members of a city union to give advance notice before staging a strike. Members of the Engineers and Architects Association have been staging spot strikes in recent days. They formed picket lines at the Port of Los Angeles Thursday and Wednesday, and outside a sewage treatment plant on Tuesday. They also staged a protest outside Los Angeles International Airport on Sunday. The strikes led Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to order the city attorney to seek the restraining order in a bid to force the union to give at least 60 hours notice before going on strike. Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe denied the city’s request, although he scheduled a hearing for Dec. 18 to consider the merits of a preliminary injunction. Dockworkers initially declined to cross the union’s pickets at the Port of Los Angeles on Wednesday, but they returned to work before causing any significant delays. On Thursday, some members of the Teamsters refused to cross union pickets, delaying the resupply of a cruise ship, said Geoffrey Garfield, a spokesman for the Engineers and Architects Association. “There’s more to come until the city gets reasonable and respectful about negotiation,” Garfield said.160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MORECalls to the city attorney were not immediately returned. The 7,400-member union is seeking renewed contract negotiations. The union wants annual pay increases of 3.25 percent to 6 percent – similar to raises recently awarded Department of Water and Power employees. Villaraigosa has made clear from the start he will not revisit a contract imposed in August that called for a retroactive 4 percent raise, with an additional 2.25 percent increase in 2007. The mayor has said an average member of the union would make about $74,500 under the latest contract, with some salaries ranging as high as $125,000. Sunday’s airport demonstration was largely peaceful and not disruptive.