David Geffen and the view from his new Beverly Hills development propertyAnother mega mansion may in the works now that entertainment mogul David Geffen has purchased one of the last buildable lots in Beverly Hills’ so-called “Billionaires Row.”Geffen paid $30 million for a 1-acre property that first listed for $39 million about a year ago, according to the Los Angeles Times. The property offers sweeping views, from Downtown to the Pacific Ocean.It sits among some of the more extravagant spec homes in Beverly Hills and itself comes with plans for a 24,500-square-foot modern-style mansion designed by architectural firm Shubin Donaldson.Nile Niami’s Opus spec mansion sits across the street — still unsold — asking $60 million. Down the block stands a Bruce Makowsky-built mansion that sold to Minecraft creator Markus Persson in 2014 for $70 million.For Geffen’s property, the Donaldson firm-designed home would have seven bedrooms, 14 bathrooms and that’s just the beginning. The plan includes a bowling alley, nightclub, bar, theater, salon, gym, and a 140-foot swimming pool running the length of the home, according to the Times.Since last summer, at least 317 acres in Beverly Hills and Bel Air alone have hit the market, seeking more than $1 billion combined, according to a property review by The Real Deal in March.Geffen — whose net worth is around $8.6 billion, according to Forbes — has owned several properties in the L.A. region over the years. In 2017, he sold two beachfront homes in Carbon Beach for $85 million and $8 million.Also a prominent philanthropist, Geffen also pledged in 2017 to donate $150 million toward a new building at the L.A. County Museum of Art. The museum is planning a $650 million expansion, and has received some star-studded support from the likes of Brad Pitt and Diane Keaton. [LAT] — Dennis Lynch
The issuesLord Hope identified two key issues:As to the first issue, in light of an examination of convention and other case law, the court found that there was no determination of a ‘civil right’ in these circumstances. As Lord Hope indicated, cases such as the present, that is the right to accommodation under section 193 of the 1996 act: ‘… where the award of services or benefits in kind is not an individual right of which the applicant can consider himself the holder, but is dependent upon a series of evaluative judgements by the provider as to whether the statutory criteria are satisfied and how the need for it ought to be met, do not engage article 6(1).’ The Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors (ACSeS – the professional organisation for chief and senior local government lawyers and other senior corporate government officers) was represented at the LGA meeting by ACSeS president Dr Mirza Ahmad and myself. Dr Ahmad said: ‘There is a pressing need – and the time is right – for local government to be given a general power of competence to achieve excellence for the public. All local and regional partnerships will demand – and benefit from – the greater clarity and certainty of powers that would flow from a general power of competence and help local governance to be fit for purpose for the 21st century.’ This meeting resulted in a Draft Local Government (Power of General Competence) Bill being presented to parliament by the LGA last week. With an introduction and explanatory notes to supplement the draft bill, the document is ‘published as a contribution to the debate about local democracy and the powers which councils need to innovate, and to meet the needs of local communities’. But whatever happens, local authorities need the confidence to be able to make a positive difference locally without undue fear of being ruled out of court. As the LGA points out: ‘Legislating to create a power of general competence for local government would contribute to councils’ confidence in their powers to tackle in new ways the challenges their communities face.’ It is true that appropriate care in the lead up to, and taking of, local authority decisions should make successful challenge less likely. But if vires confidence continues to approach flatline across many local authorities, the proposed general competence power could be just the thing to return it to healthy zigzag. If money does actually make the world go round (as enthusiastically asserted by MC and Sally Bowles in the 1972 film Cabaret) then it is confidence that fuels it. For, as we have all been experiencing, just as confidence ebbs, so does the economic system slow down and stagnate. And banks that lose market confidence are likely to enter rapid meltdown as depositors run to withdraw their cash – as at Northern Rock. But confidence can be a magic ingredient in the public sector too. And, in terms of legal powers, local authorities appeared to suffer a massive loss of confidence following the June 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeal in the LAML case (see Brent LBC v Risk Management Partners Ltd and London Authorities Mutual Ltd and Harrow London Borough Council as interested parties  EWCA Civ 490). As previously indicated (see  Gazette 10 September, 14), the court found that the local authorities in question could not lawfully participate in a mutual insurance company and that the well-being powers in part 1 of the Local Government Act 2000 would not in the circumstances assist. While the Court of Appeal in LAML did take a rather traditional view of vires (no doubt partially in light of the evidence and other material before it), and this is currently envisaged to be tested by the Supreme Court on appeal in December 2010, well-being does remain a valuable and broad power in the meantime. The trick is to make sure it is used properly. This includes making appropriate reference to the power in the officer report submitted in respect of the proposed decision and identifying the specific outcomes that are proposed to promote or improve the relevant ingredient of well-being. It is also useful to identify which strands of well-being the activity or outcome is designed to promote or improve. In summary:But to return to the confidence issue – despite the continuing breadth of well-being (and the width of previous judicial interpretations) the LAML decision has certainly caused a crisis of vires confidence in many local authorities. It is for this reason that the Local Government Association (LGA) recently hosted a meeting of local government lawyers, and others with expertise in this area, with a view to producing a draft power of general competence as a legislative way forward. Does a section 204 appeal involve the determination of a ‘civil right’ for the purposes of article 6(1), either generally or in cases such as the present ones where the issue is simply one of fact? If so, does article 6(1) require that the court hearing such an appeal must have a full fact-finding jurisdiction so that it can determine for itself a dispute of fact, either generally or in cases such as these? Nicholas Dobson is a lawyer specialising in local and public law. He is also communications officer for the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors be mindful of the precise statutory width but also the statutory boundaries of well-being; with well-being, there needs to be ‘some reasonably well-defined outcome’ which is proposed to promote or improve the well-being in question; the proposal needs to be objectively reasonable in light of the fiduciary duty and all the circumstances, and also consistent with the statutory purpose of each of the powers relied on; make clear in the relevant report the precise powers to be relied on and how they are proposed to operate in the particular circumstances. And in respect of the ‘full fact-finding jurisdiction’ point, Lord Hope applied the decision of the House of Lords in Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council  UKHL 5, and held that the absence of a full fact-finding jurisdiction in the court to which an appeal lies under section 204 does not deprive it of what it needs to satisfy the requirements of article 6(1). Homelessness determinations not a ‘civil right’ Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial) provides, among other things, that in the determination of a person’s civil rights and obligations… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. So far, so fine. But like most pieces of law this immediately raises more questions than it answers. For instance, what is a ‘civil right’ for these purposes? Also, to what extent will judicial review (which determines decision lawfulness on the basis of facts already found) amount to a conformably fair hearing? And where do local authority homelessness decisions stand in all this? On 17 February the Supreme Court tackled these issues head on in Tomlinson and others v Birmingham City Council  UKSC 8. Lord Hope (with whom Lady Hale and Lord Brown agreed) gave the leading judgment. Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 contains local authority homelessness responsibilities. The primary duty (in section 193(2)) is to ensure that accommodation is available for a homeless applicant. This applies (per section 193(1)) where the authority is satisfied that the applicant is homeless, has a priority need, is eligible for assistance and where the authority is not satisfied that the applicant became homeless intentionally. However, under section 193(5), this duty does not apply where the applicant, having been informed by the authority both of the possible consequences of refusal of an accommodation offer and of the right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation, refuses an offer of accommodation which the authority is satisfied is suitable for him. In addition, the applicant needs to have been notified by the authority that it thereby regards itself as having discharged its duty. The issue in the instant case had been whether some applicants did in fact receive the section 193(5) letters which the council contended it had sent. As Lord Hope in the Supreme Court pointed out, the jurisdiction exercised by the county court under the statutory appeals process (see section 204(1) of the 1996 act) is one of judicial review. For there ‘… is no general right of appeal against the decision of the reviewing officer’. And the ‘county court judge may not make fresh findings of fact’ but ‘must accept the conclusions on credibility that have been reached by the reviewing officer’. Consequently, the appellants contended that where simple questions of fact are in issue, the court must exercise a full fact-finding jurisdiction if the requirements of article 6(1) are to be satisfied. They argued that the decisions of the reviewing officers should be remitted to the county court for consideration on their merits, or that it be declared that section 204(1) of the 1996 act is incompatible with the appellants’ rights under that article. CommentIn making this decision the Supreme Court has laid to rest a legal issue that has been festering for some time. In Runa Begum, Lord Hoffmann had observed that ‘parliament is entitled to take the view that it is not in the public interest that an excessive proportion of the funds available for a welfare scheme should be consumed in administration and legal disputes’. Lord Hope referred to this in the introduction to his judgment and said that since ‘concerns about over-judicialisation of dispute procedures in the administration of social and welfare benefits have not gone away…this case provides us with an opportunity to introduce a greater degree of certainty into this area of public law’. Following this judgment, those within local authorities charged with taking difficult decisions in applying very limited resources to an unrelenting and seemingly infinite torrent of demand will undoubtedly be relieved that at least one layer of legal complexity has been removed from the task in hand.
Click here to download a pdf of the latest Export Watch update, provided by the U.S. Dairy Export Council. PD advertisementadvertisement
Related Topics2018 NBA Finals2018 NBA PlayoffsCavaliersCavsClevelandCleveland CavaliersGolden State WarriorsNBA Ashley is a former basketball player who covers the Cleveland Cavaliers, Indians and high school sports for NEO Sports Insiders. She also covers the Cavs for SB Nation’s Fear The Sword. Ashley is a 2015 graduate of John Carroll University and previously worked in political journalism. You can follow her on Twitter @AshleyBastock42 Ashley Bastock CLEVELAND– Game 4 is the fourth elimination game the Cavaliers have had to play in during these playoffs, and considering it is do or die, you probably don’t need anything to get you more excited, or at the very least, anxious.But if you do, the Cavs have you covered with a hype video for Game 4.Watch below:”We’re not gonna give in … we know we can beat this team.”#NBAFinals || #[email protected]’s #KeyInsider Game 4 Hype Video pic.twitter.com/BMcGt3gxvT— Cleveland Cavaliers (@cavs) June 7, 2018
Jomtien Golf with the IPGCMonday, December 5, Eastern Star – StablefordA public holiday today and there were 15 members away and not playing, so the field was down to nine groups only. The cut in the 3 men’s divisions was 5-15, 16-19 and 20+ and 36 points was the best score of the day for the organiser to win division 3. Marty Aronson took second one point behind and the Cockney boy, Rod Howett was third with 32. It was a warm welcome back to Martin Grimoldby, still playing off 5, who won the first division with 20 points on the back nine and a total of 35. Pete Sumner and Kari Kuparinen both came in with 34 points each but with an 18/16 back nine count back Pete was smiling most at the presentation. The top three pairings from the Eastern Star scramble: Bryan Rought, Bryan Priestley, Brian and Ning Neal, Paul Smith and Kari Kuparinen.Charlie Cox meanwhile topped division 2 with 34 points, Mike Lewis was second two points behind and Andy Baber beat Frank Kelly on the back nine (16/15) after they both returned scores of 31.Near pins went to Martin Grimoldby, Mike Missler, Alan Pilkington, Pete Sumner, Andy Galvin, Frank Kelly and Jim Lane.Pete Sumner was the only one to convert his near pin into a birdie ‘2’ to take the pot in Div. 1 while a rollover ensued in the second flight.Friday, December 9, Eastern Star – 2- Person ScrambleToday was a 60th birthday bash for a certain person, no names mentioned as too embarrassed, and there were 86 out, 43 teams in a two-person scramble here at Eastern Star.A 40% combined handicap was the allowance for this stableford competition but you were only allowed 2 shots higher than the lowest handicap. Each team of two also had to select 7 drives each and mark the card.It was a very overcast day as we arrived here and as the first two teams got off at 8.30 the conditions remained constant with a very cool but slight breeze, fantastic conditions for golf.There were 4 divisions for individual nearest the pin prizes on all par threes irrespective of which ball you chose. The cut was 2-15, 16-20 and 21+ and of course the ladies.The results of the competition were as follows:1st Bryan Rought & Bryan Priestley 48pts2nd Bryan & Ning Neal 48pts3rd Paul Smith & Kari Kuparinen 45pts4th Tony & Wendy Chetland 45pts5th Noi Emmerson & Frank Kelly 45pts6th Brian Blackford & Les Smith 44pts7th Pete Sumner & Keith Wooley 44pts8th Paul Chabot and Dennis Scougal 44ptsNear Pins: Miss Chevrolet, Srithong Tann (2), Alan Griffiths, Rodney N, Paul Smith, Keith Wooley, Brian Blackford, Colin James, Bryan Rought, Les Smith and Tony Holehouse.2’s: Brian Blackford & Les Smith; Tony Cowe & Malcolm Saunders; Alan Griffiths & Alan Pilkington (2); Toi & Darryl Blair; Pete Sumner & Keith Wooley.The worst score of the day was 30 points, no names mentioned, but well done Dazza Smyth and John Williams.It was congratulations all round to the two Bryans, and there was a golf ball draw for all non winners in the top eight placings. There was live music and food for all at Siam Cats, so a big thank-you to Jules’s Restaurant in View Talay 1 for supplying the food and Faa and Olaf the music at Cats. A great day was had by all – many thanks to all who attended and also many thanks for the birthday presents.
Ballinasloe Horse and Agricultural Show Ltd are hosting a three day programme of show jumping inBallinasloe Show Grounds from Friday 26thto Sunday 28th May,including the prestigious New Heights Champions Series. Padraic Ryan Secretary Ballinasloe Horse and Agricultural Show Ltd commented“We are delighted to be able to offer this programme of top level show jumping and the prestigious New Heights Champions event, and look forward to welcoming all participants.This is a great opportunity for residents and visitors to Ballinasloe to see the spectacle and excitement of top class showjumping and enjoy an entertaining weekend for free.”Gates open at 8am each day, and the first event starts is at 9am sharp and entrance is FREE for spectators and free parking. Food, refreshments and full bar will be available throughout. Equestrian stallholders are welcome.For further information contact: Padraic Ryan, Secretary 087 – 907 9282Peter O’Connor, Director 087 – 258 1780Or visit us on Facebook – Ballinasloe Showprint WhatsApp Facebook Twitter Email The New Heights Champions Series, a joint venture between Show Jumping Ireland and Horse Sport Ireland, replaces the Premier Series which had been the pinnacle of National Show Jumping in Ireland for the past 10 years. The series boasts an overall prize fund of over €110,000 and will take place at10 locations across the four provinces of Ireland. There will be a full programme of events in Ballinasloe Show Grounds each day from 9am, including three Grand Prix events: Friday Connaught Grand PrixSaturday National Grand Prix LeagueSunday New Heights ChampionshipThis is a rare opportunity to see the finest Irish and International showjumping horses and riders in action free.Director Gerry Stronge spoke to John MulliganAudio Playerhttps://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/sports.podcast/GERRY+STRONGE+SHOWJUMPING+THURSDAY.mp300:0000:0000:00Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.
MMA’s Viscount “Quininup” at Perth Airport. Credit Merv Prime Quininup, a 48-seat Vickers Viscount, gleamed like near new in its MacRobertson Miller Airlines color scheme of blue and green, a stark contrast to the burning red earth she flew over as she took miners north to make their fortunes as Western Australia’s first iron ore boom gathered momentum.But she carried deep in her wing a deadly flaw that had started some five years earlier during a botched modification performed at Essendon Airport.Quininup was a Vickers Viscount 720C and had started life in 1954 as the second of a new fleet for Trans Australian Airlines. A series of leases then purchase saw her owned by Ansett-ANA, which transferred her to its WA subsidiary MMA as VH-RMQ a few months prior to the crash.Read: World’s Best Airlines for 2019For her five crew, she was the darling of the fleet and with a passenger capacity of 48 passengers almost twice the size of her stablemate the Fokker F27 Friendship.Tuesday, December 31, 1968, dawned a typical summer day in Perth: warm with wind out of the north-east.Being New Year’s Eve, the passenger load was light – just 22 including Kelmscott man Keith Dyke, 67, who was flying for the first time.VH-RMQ’s captain, was Brian Bayly, a WW11 bomber pilot who had the right stuff in spades and was the fourth most senior pilot at MMA with over 19,000 hours.Captain Brian Bayly. Photo colorized by Benoit VienneCaptain Bayly was a legend, suave, engaging, and humorous and always smiling.His crew for Flight 1750 to Port Hedland was First Officer Michael Nelson 31, senior training hostess Georgette Bradshaw, 24, Gail Sweetman 23, who had been WA’s entrant in the 1965, Miss Australia Quest. With them was 23-year-old trainee hostess Kay Aubery, who had joined the airline only a month earlier and was making her fourth flight.According to researcher Anthony James, Miss Aubery, an only child, was originally rostered on a flight to Kalgoorlie and was a last-minute inclusion.The boarding call came at 8.10am and one passenger Gordon Collins, a 34-year-old father of eight, was heard to tell his wife: “I don’t want to go”.The Viscount took off at 8.36am.According to Mr. James, “moments later, Dorothy Weir, whose husband, Gordon, was a passenger, had a strange sensation.”Mrs. Weir said “my legs suddenly buckled under me and I could not walk. I just sat there and watched the plane until it disappeared.”Aside from some turbulence early in the flight, the flying conditions were fine.The flight route was north-east over Mount Magnet with a turn due north at Meekatharra, abeam Wittenoom Gorge at 11.14amAt 11.20am, FO Nelson advised that they would be commencing their descent from FL190 (19,000ft) in three minutes.And precisely three minutes later Captain Bayly eased back the throttles on the four Rolls Royce Dart turboprops and Quininup left the cruise level of FL190 and commenced the descent into Port Hedland — a procedure he had done hundreds of timesAt 11.34am, FO Nelson reported that Quininup was 30 miles (48km) south of Port Hedland and had left 7,000 ft.This was the final transmission.Just four seconds later the starboard (right) wing outboard of the inner or No. 3 engine – and including the No. 4 engine – snapped off and hit the tail as it separated sending Quininup into uncontrollable dive, impacting the ground 26 seconds later.But the impact of this disaster is still painful 50 years on.On the huge Indee station, owner Colin Brierly heard two big explosions and observed a huge, black smoke cloud rise in the distance.In Port Hedland, air traffic controller Pat Seymour saw the same ominous smoke.Mr. Seymour told Mr. James: “When I didn’t get a response from the crew, I knew something had gone terribly wrong with the aircraft. Crews always respond promptly during this stage of flight.”Search and rescue efforts were launched immediately.Mr. Brierly was first to the sickening crash site but there were no survivors.All that was left were twisted pieces of metal, scattered over a wide area blackened by the inferno that engulfed the wreckage.The tragedy started the most comprehensive investigation in Australian aviation history at the time.The wing that separated was sent to Melbourne for forensic examination and it was discovered after nine months of forensic investigation that shoddy maintenance work was to blame.Engineers in Melbourne at Ansett performing an upgrade to the wing in 1964 “butchered” pre-drilled holes in a metal plate that was being bolted to the underside of a wing spar so that they lined up with holes in the spar.Incredibly, none of the three involved were ever brought to account and thus the relatives were denied proper compensation.
A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro… Related Posts The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos dave copeland Tags:#Facebook#web Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification From here on out, Facebook will not be measured by the number of registered users, the number of photos being uploaded every minute or the number of likes and comments left by its more than 900 million members.Facebook became a publicly traded company at 11:30 a.m. Eastern Friday, and from here on out, Facebook will first and foremost be measured by its share price.Founder Mark Zuckerberg rang the opening bell of Nasdaq, where his company will be listed under the symbol FB. The bell, which Zuckerberg rang remotely from the company’s Menlo Park headquarters, was rigged to automatically update his Facebook status to say he had listed a company on the exchange. The sheer volume of orders for the stock delayed the start of trading by 30 minutes, as traders were flooded with change orders. Zuckerberg had been expected to make comments after U.S. markets opened at 9:30 a.m. Eastern but had not issued a statement by the time Facebook shares started trading two hours later. Facebook’s share price was set at $38 late Thursday night but quickly rose to $42.99 after 421 million shares of Facebook started trading. [UPDATE: After that increase, the share price dropped back to its initial sale price where it hovered for the rest of the morning.] Analysts and investors were expecting a day of high volume and volatility, as early investors cashed in shares, and people getting their first crack at owning Facebook placed orders through retail brokers. Nasdaq IT officials were on a morning-long conference call to make sure the volume – which is estimated to be at least 500 million shares traded – did not crash the exchange’s order-processing system.It was the third-largest initial public offering in history, netting $16 billion and valuing Facebook at $104.2 billion. It was also arguably the biggest tech story on Wall Street since Google went public in 2004.“The more we talk about it, the more people at home are going to say ‘I want to own a piece of Facebook’ and not just go on Facebook,” CNBC analyst Jim Cramer told viewers just after Nasdaq opened at 9:30 a.m. ET Friday. “It could overwhelm the market – there is Facebook, which is fabulous, and there is everything else, which is the worst market we have seen in years.”In spite of grim financial news for the broader markets – and repeated warnings from Cramer that naive investors would run up the price of Facebook – the IPO had a celebratory feel to it, coming a decade after the dot-com bubble burst and five years into a global recession. Anchors on financial news networks wore hoodies over their shirts and ties in deference to Zuckerberg’s trademark outfit. One CNBC commentator called the buildup to the start of trading “the business news equivalent of a car chase.” A beaming Zuckerberg was shown flanked by employees, including COO Sheryl Sandberg, as he rang the Nasdaq opening bell in the early-morning hours following the company’s 31st hackathon. Television reporters camped outside the campus gave a blow-by-blow account of what was happening at Facebook at dawn local time, including updates that employees stayed up all night binging on Red bull, working on code, playing roller hockey, ordering Chinese food and making runs to In-N-Out Burger.Still, all of the optimism was tempered by persistent and familiar fears that the company may be overvalued. Facebook opened with a valuation 100 times greater than its earnings for the previous 12 months. If Facebook stumbles, it will have a far-reaching ripple effect across the tech sector and the broader economy.“Facebook is the component that will make or break the IPO market,” Scott Sweet, of IPO Boutique, told Dow Jones. “It is so powerful and there is so much demand that if the IPO didn’t work, the IPO pipeline would immediately freeze.”
Modern servers can now support up to terabytes of main memory and a failure of even a single memory cell can lead to a crash. Besides soft errors that can be corrected in hardware, hard uncorrectable errors can occur; in such case the only option for a server was to stop operation. In view of this recent report memory errors might cause downtimes and recovery, which is unacceptable for mission-critical enterprise systems. To address this issue Intel has introduced a wide range of reliability and high-availability features in the Intel® Xeon® 7500 processor series (code-named Nehalem-EX).These features are supported in Linux as Andi Kleen explains in his presentation: It is now possible that hard memory failures are caught by the operating system and exposed to applications. This way a server application can handle memory errors and continue to operate if running on Intel® Xeon® 7500 processor series.SAP has announced at Sapphire that they are working towards revolutionizing their enterprise software by taking advantage of their in-memory technology, which will allow fast queries and real-time processing. Instead of waiting hours to compile reports or days to replicate data in business warehouses, business users will get immediate responses on real-time data. Naturally, for in-memory processing, it is very important to be resistant against memory errors. Please check out our SSG booth at Intel Developer Forum 2010 in person and my colleague Otto Bruggeman will be happy to show you how SAP’s in-memory database is handling memory errors on Intel® Xeon® 7500 processor series.Best regards,Roman
PSG chief Leonardo to try again for Tottenham defender Serge Aurierby Paul Vegasa month agoSend to a friendShare the lovePSG chief Leonardo is ready to try again for Tottenham defender Serge Aurier.With the January market looming, Leonardo still wants to bring Aurier back to PSG, says Sportmediaset.The Ivorian was on Leonardo’s shopping list over the summer, but ran out of time to do the deal.The pair are close and talks will resume ahead of the market reopening in the New Year.PSG would favour an initial loan arrangement. TagsTransfersAbout the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say