Connect with us

News

Hospital Program Prioritizes Student Recovery Through Education

Published

on

In August 2023, the Hechinger Report’s Rebecca Redelmeier reported findings from the University of North Carolina’s Neurosciences Hospital on how in-hospital schools open a road to recovery to address the student mental health crisis and foster school connectedness. Programs like UNC’s Hospital School have been linked to helping students recover both mentally and academically.

These spaces foster school connectedness, the sense of belonging in school care built between peers and teachers. The hospital schools are year-round and are a part of the district school system. Hospital school staff consult with students’ families about strategies for maintaining a sense of normalcy, while keeping the guidance counselors at their traditional schools in the loop as well.

School support in hospitals helps students’ mental health, easing the transition back to traditional school post-hospitalization. Redelmeier also reports on how hospitals in more rural and less-resourced areas tend to receive minimal school services. In-patient mental health hospitalizations soared by more than 120 percent between 2016 and 2022. In 2020, Sara Midura, a former teacher at a hospital school program, reflects how in northern Michigan, a city of fifteen thousand people, there are no hospital school programs. Midura emphasizes how students’ care is put at risk without a program to bridge schools and hospitals.

Advertisement

The discourse surrounding the rise of in-hospital school programs as a way for students to build school connectedness and receive psychiatric care is absent in the corporate media. Rather, the establishment press has largely focused on the burgeoning relationship between medical curricula and school programs. The Washington Post describes partnerships that will develop hands-on training in the medical profession.

There is an emphasis on work experience, whereas the Hechinger Report focuses on how students can exist in a space that acts as a bridge between the psychiatric hospital and their traditional school. The student mental health crises and national shortage of counselors and mental healthcare providers, amplified since the pandemic, are covered at length by sources such as the Post and the New York Times, but the solutions posed are not focused on in-hospital school efforts.

Instead, the corporate media reference how providers have turned to suicide prevention program partnerships, issuing emergency licences and other ways to accelerate the school-to-psychologist pipeline. As of November 2023, the in-hospital school services focusing on the students’ needs and path to reintegration out of the hospital have not been covered by the corporate media.

SourceRebecca Redelmeier, “How In-Hospital Schools Support Youth in Mental Health Crises,” The Hechinger Report, August 31, 2023.

Advertisement

Student Researchers: Adehl Bavar, Ruby Bochiccio-Sipos, Osei Dixon, Ryan Hunt, and Rianna Jakson (University of Massachusetts Amherst)

Faculty Evaluators: Allison Butler and Jeewon Chon (University of Massachusetts Amherst)

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Money

Rolls-Royce NYC Private Office showroom caters to top-tier clients

Published

on

Rolls-Royce NYC Private Office showroom caters to top-tier clients
Inside the Rolls-Royce Private Office in New York City

Rolls-Royce has opened its first U.S. “Private Office,” a secret VIP design studio for ultra-wealthy clients who want highly personalized cars.

The Private Office, in Manhattan’s trendy Meatpacking District, is central to the fabled British automaker’s new strategy of growing sales and profits from selling more customized, higher-priced vehicles rather than boosting production. Rolls-Royce produced 6,032 cars last year, less than half the production of Ferrari, yet continues to generate strong profit growth for its parent company BMW.

While Rolls-Royce customers have been customizing their rides for decades, the Private Office brings the concept of a personalized Rolls to a whole new level. Once select customers order a car from a dealer, they can go to the Private Office to work with a designer to create an entirely personalized car — from special paint colors to their favorite fabrics, woods, lighting schemes and other materials.

“They may want the exterior of their Rolls-Royce to match the color of their dog’s eyes,” said Rolls-Royce CEO Chris Brownridge. “They may want to have interior panels in the car with the mother-of-pearl from their private collection. We can bring those sorts of requests to life through having direct access to the team. And the possibilities really are endless.”

Advertisement

Rolls-Royce CEO Chris Brownridge.

CNBC

Rolls-Royce calls its top level of personalization the “Bespoke” program. Creating a Bespoke Rolls can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the sticker price, which for a Rolls-Royce Phantom is just under $500,000, bringing the total sale price of some cars to more than $1 million.

The Private Office is reserved for the most complicated — and expensive — Bespoke projects. It’s not a dealership and there are no actual cars displayed. To get into the Private Office, customers press a black security screen outside an unmarked building and take a secure elevator to the top floor.

Advertisement

With its sleek black kitchen, low sofas, a dining table, outdoor terrace, and turntable with stacks of classic rock and jazz vinyl records, the Private Office looks more like a billionaire’s pied-a-terre than a car showroom. The only hint that it’s a Rolls-Royce facility is a row of shelves along the back wall displaying samples of paint colors, threads, leathers, metals and a row of the famous “Spirit of Ecstasy” hood ornaments in different finishes.

The Rolls-Royce Phantom Syntopia.

Courtesy: Rolls-Royce

The New York Private Office is the company’s third worldwide, following Dubai, United Arab Emirates, which opened in 2022, and Shanghai in 2023. The company is about to open its fourth, in Seoul, Korea.

Advertisement

The idea, Brownridge says, is to bring the expertise and design capability of its Goodwood, U.K., factory to clients around the world. That’s especially important as client requests become more unusual and complex.

One Rolls-Royce client wanted a car inspired by flowers. The Rolls team created an extended-wheelbase Phantom with a headliner covered with more than 1 million embroidered roses. Another client who loves Hawaii and has a favorite rocking chair made of rare Koa wood wanted a Koa-themed Rolls. Since Koa wood is protected in Hawaii, only dead or naturally fallen Koa trees can be harvested. Rolls spent three years waiting and hunting for the right tree, then built a Koa Phantom, with the wood used on the dashboard, center console and doors. The company even made a matching picnic hamper and table. The whole package took more than 500 hours to create.

Interior of the custom Rolls-Royce Koa Phantom.

Courtesy: Rolls-Royce

Advertisement

“A lot of these clients would never, ever sell their cars,” Brownridge said. “It’s so personal and it means to much to them.”

To keep up with the surging demand for custom cars, Rolls-Royce is also expanding its Bespoke workshops in Goodwood. Brownridge said the goal isn’t to produce more cars, but to produce higher-value, more customized cars.

“As our commissions have become more sophisticated, our business has become more successful,” Brownridge said. “Our mission is really to create value for our shareholder, to create value for our retail partners, but most importantly, to create value for our clients. Because when you produce a masterpiece for them, it means so much more than just a motorcar. I often say that the fact that they have four wheels is almost a nice-to-have, because they really are a work of art.”

Brownridge said when customers are building their special Rolls-Royces, they not only visit the factory in Goodwood, but they also get to know the paint shop specialists, the woodworkers, the embroidery experts and other members of the team.

Advertisement

“Every single client that I’ve met, they all say, what makes Rolls Royce Special is that they feel that they are part of a family,” he said. “They’re not customers to us, they’re part of Rolls Royce. Many of our clients will come to Goodwood, and they will know the people that are making their cars. It’s not just the personal connection to the motorcar. It’s the personal connection to the whole team who are producing these magnificent things.”

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Source link

Continue Reading

News

How Liberal Blunders Handed the Right the Supreme Court

Published

on

How Liberal Blunders Handed the Right the Supreme Court

As the Supreme Court launches a new term, it remains dominated by a 6-3 super-majority that has ushered in one of the most conservative eras in the institution’s history. In recent years, the justices have overturned key precedents on abortion, gun rights, and the power of federal regulators while forging a groundbreaking path in areas spanning religious liberty, presidential immunity, and other fields that have damaged the Court’s reputation and instigated calls for reforms.

The lurch to the right is the culmination of a more than 50-year transformation. Most Americans are familiar with the latest chapters of that story. Senate Republicans, for example, used unprecedented tactics to prevent Democratic President Barack Obama from filling the Supreme Court seat of the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. They justified the move by claiming that a seat should not be filled in the final months of a presidential term. Four years later, however, they flipped positions and rushed the conservative Amy Coney Barrett through the confirmation process after liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died months before the end of Republican Donald Trump’s presidential term.

Yet, most Americans do not know that the seeds of this warfare over the Court were not planted by conservatives in recent years, but by liberals in the late 1960s. Through a combination of hubris, miscalculation, and poor timing, they squandered a majority that could have remained intact for decades to come, giving way to the conservative counter-revolution that continues to dramatically reshape American law. 

That hubris was on full display when Lyndon Johnson eyed the high court months after his landslide victory in 1964. Eager to extend the Warren Court’s liberal jurisprudence and fearful that his Great Society might suffer the fate of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives at the hands of conservative jurists, Johnson resolved to maintain the institution’s ideological bent.

Advertisement

Read More: A Mistake in the Early 1970s Still Haunts Supreme Court Ethics

To accomplish this task, he sought to do the impossible—remove a sitting justice to make room for his close friend and counselor, Abe Fortas. Fortas was a brilliant attorney renowned for winning the landmark case Gideon v. Wainright, which expanded the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel to state prosecutions.

In 1965, the news of Justice Arthur Goldberg’s frustration with the Court’s tepid pace, which couldn’t match the rush Goldberg had felt as a former union negotiator and Labor Secretary, gave Johnson an opening. Exploiting the justice’s patriotism and ego, he offered Goldberg the ambassadorship to the U.N., along with a promise that the justice would be his point man on Vietnam. To sweeten the offer, Johnson vowed to make Goldberg a “second secretary of state.” Though never intending to keep these promises, Johnson even dangled the prospect of adding the justice to his ticket in 1968 as a final inducement. Goldberg succumbed within days.

Johnson then coaxed Fortas, who preferred to maintain his lucrative private legal practice, into accepting the appointment. Having endured Johnson’s full-court press, Goldberg presciently told his clerks: “He’s going to wear him down.” To overcome Fortas’ repeated refusals, Johnson asked his friend to visit the White House and then sprung the news that they were headed to a press conference to announce Fortas’ appointment. “To the best of my knowledge… I never said yes” Fortas later proclaimed—but he found himself on the Court all the same.

Advertisement

Johnson’s next move was just as cunning. To dislodge Tom Clark, a center-right justice, Johnson appointed the justice’s son, Ramsey, to lead the Justice Department in 1967, knowing that the senior Clark would resign rather than risk a conflict of interest that could impede his son’s advancement.

At that point, Johnson’s reengineering of the Court looked like a masterclass in Machiavellian scheming. Though Goldberg and Fortas were ideologically comparable, replacing Clark with Thurgood Marshall created a 6-3 liberal bloc capable of perpetuating the Warren Court for years to come.

Yet, what might have been the next chapter in cementing the liberal dominance of the Court instead proved to be the beginning of its undoing. In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren decided to retire because he was convinced that Richard Nixon would win the presidency. Warren “detested” his fellow Californian with an “abiding passion” and feared Nixon would dismantle the Warren Court’s revolutionary legacy.

Johnson ignored the plethora of names suggested to him, which included Texas Governor John Connally, Attorney General Clark, Goldberg, and others. Instead, he selected Fortas to be chief justice and Homer Thornberry, an old friend serving as a federal appeals court judge, for Fortas’ seat. In doing so, Johnson rejected Defense Secretary Clark Clifford’s suggestion of pairing Fortas with a moderate Republican to secure GOP support. “I don’t intend to put some damned Republican on the Court,” Johnson fired back at Clifford.

Advertisement

The choice of the Texan Thornberry was intended to appease conservative Southern Democrats—the Warren Court’s biggest critics. When an aide warned that Thornberry and Fortas would be ripe for charges of cronyism, the president mocked his calculations: “What political office did you ever get elected to?”

To secure the nominations, Johnson attained personal guarantees from the Senate’s two most powerful members, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, and Richard Russell, the long-time leader of the Southern Democrats. Backed by Johnson—the one time “Master of the Senate”—and having been easily confirmed in 1965, Fortas’ ascension seemed like a foregone conclusion.

To the surprise of the Washington establishment, however, a coalition led by a Republican odd couple—ardent segregationist Strom Thurmond, and Robert Griffin, a centrist from Michigan—shattered the well-established norms governing judicial appointments to upend the nominations.  

The rebels savvily allied themselves with the Southern Democrats to organize the first filibuster against a Court nominee. Initially, they galvanized the opposition with the then-novel argument that since it was an election year, the next president, not the “lame duck” Johnson, ought to name the new chief justice. 

Advertisement

Gaining momentum, their attacks grew more strident. Fortas’ foes labeled him a crony for serving as the president’s advisor, questioned his ethics by pointing to oversized payments for a teaching position, and welcomed social conservatives to tar him as a patron of criminals and pornographers.

Read More: How SCOTUS Gave Prosecutors Incredible Power Over Abortion Access

Thurmond’s histrionics reached their apogee when, screaming from the dais during Fortas’ confirmation hearings, he accused the nominee of inciting criminals to “commit rapes.” His most unorthodox exploit involved the airing of adult movies the Court had shielded from censors. The unprecedented spectacle mockingly named the “Fortas Film Festival” was the last straw that doomed the justice’s candidacy.

The failure exposed Johnson’s miscalculations. Contrary to what he had envisioned, Thornberry’s selection failed to pacify the Southern Democrats. And by picking Fortas rather than a centrist or someone not already sitting on the Court, Johnson unwittingly gave the Warren Court’s enemies a prime target.  

Advertisement

Even more surprisingly, for a president revered for bending the Senate to his will, he failed to rally the chamber’s liberals angered over his handling of the Vietnam War. The final blow came when his two long-time friends, Dirksen and Russell, abandoned Johnson, the latter in a pique over Ramsey Clark’s handling of a district court judgeship.   

After a May 1969 LIFE article exposed a short lived dubious financial arrangement between Fortas and a white-collar criminal, Warren pressured him into resigning to preserve the Court’s integrity. Upon Warren’s retirement a few weeks afterwards, the liberal hold over the institution was over after 30 years.

It would take more than two decades for conservatives to seize firm control of the Court and another three to reach today’s commanding super-majority. Along the way, Republicans suffered numerous setbacks, highlighted by Robert Bork’s botched nomination in 1987 and the liberal turn taken by Justices Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter. The abrupt shift in the Court’s ideological make-up in 1969, however, allowed the right to lay the foundation for the long-term transformation of the judicial body into a conservative stronghold.

The demise of the Court’s liberal majority is littered with what-ifs. Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas had been on the Court for more than a quarter century by the mid-1960s (and Black was 80 years old). What if they had retired during Johnson’s presidency rather than serve until infirmity forced their resignations at moments when Republicans occupied the White House? 

What if Clark had acquiesced to Russell’s judicial pick, thereby keeping the head of the Southern Democrats in Fortas’ camp? What if Warren had retired earlier, when Johnson’s power was at its apex, or hadn’t driven Fortas from the Court for his ethical lapse? What if Johnson hadn’t duped Goldberg into resigning in 1965 or if he had tried to reinstall the former justice on the Court in 1968?

Advertisement

At the center of all of this was Johnson’s blundering. In his memoir, the former president admitted he “feared… a conservative Court.” Yet, in trying to prevent it, he instead helped foster the creation of the very thing he feared.

Michael Bobelian is a journalist who has written about the Supreme Court, legal affairs, and history for the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Forbes.com, and other publications. His most recent book is Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court.

Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Mel Stride to back James Cleverly in Conservative leadership race

Published

on

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Former Conservative leadership candidate Mel Stride is set to throw his backing behind James Cleverly on Monday evening, in a boost to the ex-home secretary’s bid to replace Rishi Sunak, according to party figures.

The expected endorsement will come hours before Tory MPs vote on Tuesday to eliminate one of the four remaining contenders from the race. They will vote out another candidate on Wednesday, with Conservative members being balloted in a run-off between the final two names later this month. 

Advertisement

Cleverly came joint third with ex-security minister Tom Tugendhat in the second round of voting last month. That ballot saw former immigration minister Robert Jenrick in pole position with ex-business secretary Kemi Badenoch in second place. 

However, Cleverly picked up momentum during the party’s annual conference in Birmingham last week, after swerving any gaffes and giving a strong performance in his keynote speech. Jenrick and Badenoch saw their conference appearances overshadowed by controversial comments, which may have dented their appeal with colleagues and party members.

Stride, who was knocked out in the second-round ballot, was a staunch supporter of Sunak and is seen as a senior centrist Tory. The backing will be another welcome boost for Cleverly, but may cement in the minds of MPs and members the sense that he is a moderate Tory in a party that is feeling threatened by Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

Former home secretary Priti Patel, the leadership candidate who was knocked out of the race first, has so far declined to offer her public support to any of the remaining candidates. 

Advertisement

These have sought to project upward momentum for their campaigns with a series of high-profile endorsements in recent days. 

Badenoch won the backing of Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida at the weekend. The ex-US presidential hopeful said she would be an inspiration for conservatives “across the world”.

Earlier on Monday Andy Street, the former Tory mayor of the West Midlands, said Tugendhat best embodied “a moderate, inclusive brand of Conservatism” that “focuses on real societal issues, not ideology”.

Jenrick’s campaign is so confident of reaching the final two that it is saving significant endorsements until the back end of this week, according to one person familiar with his thinking, after MPs have knocked out two of the current contenders. Jenrick is planning a big speech in central London on Thursday in expectation of making the run-off.

Advertisement

At the weekend a survey of members by the ConservativeHome grassroots website suggested that Cleverly had leapfrogged Jenrick among the party faithful. However, it found that Kemi Badenoch remained in first position.

On Monday, the candidates used a debate in the House of Commons on the government’s decision to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius to flaunt their patriotic credentials. 

Jenrick accused foreign secretary David Lammy of having “handed sovereign British territory to a small island nation which is an ally of China” in order to “feel good about himself at his next north London dinner party”. 

Tugendhat accused the government of “undermining the rights of the Chagossian people” with the deal. He has previously criticised Cleverly, who began negotiations with Mauritius when he was foreign secretary under Liz Truss in 2022. 

Advertisement

On Monday, Lammy insisted the deal was “strongly supported by partners” and secured the future of a UK-US military base situated on Diego Garcia, a strategically important asset.

Source link

Continue Reading

Money

SEGRO appoints former government official Corbridge as CIO

Published

on

SEGRO appoints former government official Corbridge as CIO

Corbridge will oversee the group’s digital and technology strategy, reporting to chief financial officer Soumen Das.

The post SEGRO appoints former government official Corbridge as CIO appeared first on Property Week.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Gaza’s message to the world after a year of genocide

Published

on

Gaza's message to the world after a year of genocide
YouTube video

It’s been one year since Israel launched its genocidal war on Gaza, following the Hamas-led attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, and following 75 years of Israel’s Occupation of Palestine. More than half of the Gaza Strip’s buildings, businesses, roads, farms, hospitals, and schools have been completely destroyed. Over 41,000 people have been reported killed, with this number growing daily. To commemorate a year of what has been called “the most documented genocide in history,” TRNN asked some residents of Gaza to describe their year. This is what they told us.

Producer: Belal Awad, Leo Erhardt
Videographer: Ruwaida Amer, Mahmoud Al Mashharawi
Video Editor: Leo Erhardt


Transcript

Narrator:
It’s been one year since Israel launched its war on Gaza. More than half of the strip’s
buildings, businesses, roads, farms, hospitals, and schools have been completely destroyed.
Over 41 thousand people have been reported killed, with this number growing daily. The
Real News network asked some residents of Gaza to describe their year. This is what they
told us…

Sami Isa Ramadan:
No matter how much I try to explain, I couldn’t describe even 1% of what’s happened to us.
In general, this war will be recorded in history. It should have its own title page in history. For the whole world, eh? Not only in the Gaza Strip, or Palestine. This war of Oct. 7, of the
Israeli army on Gaza, needs to be studied in history, because schools, hospitals, buildings,
homes, fishermen, farmers, workers, there was nothing that was not targeted straightaway.

Narrator:
Sami Isa Ramadan has been displaced four times since Oct. 7th and now lives amidst the
rubble in a bombed-out building, in Deir Al Balah.

Sami Isa Ramadan:
I lost a brother — I don’t know if he’s in prison or dead. My siblings have been scattered.
Three of them were injured. A missile struck our neighbor’s house and three of them were
injured, and my father was killed. God rest his soul. I mean, it’s a catastrophe. Maybe the
camera — you are filming a tiny clip, out of millions of hours. To tell you the truth, I’m tired. Truly tired, you know what I mean? And this is my suffering. Out of 2 million people, I’m just one person.

Advertisement

Narrator:
While it’s true that Sami is indeed only one of around 2.2 million residents of the strip, his
experience does reflect the experiences of many of his fellow Gazans since October 7th.

Sabreen Badwan:
The first week of the war, the Israelis contacted us and said: “Your area is not safe, you must
evacuate. This is a combat area.” They threw leaflets. At first, we didn’t want to move, but
then when we saw most people leaving — it was like a sign of the day of judgment — If you
were to see it, it was like the Nakba of 1948. I mean, I felt it was like the scenes of the 1948
displacement that our ancestors lived through. We used to hear about it like an abstract
dream and couldn’t believe it. Then we lived and experienced it, except harsher and more
difficult.

Narrator:
A staggering 90% of Palestinians in Gaza have been displaced since October 7th, making it
an almost universal experience. Sabreen Badwan is from Tel Al Hawa, and like everyone we
spoke to, has moved multiple times attempting to find safety.

Sabreen Badwan:
I went to a house in Al Nuseirat, in the center of the Gaza strip. We spent a single night
there. That same night we awoke in the middle of a massacre. The entire block was
completely destroyed. From this day I was convinced the enemy was lying—there is no safe
place. I decided to move to a UNWRA school because before this war, as we used to know,
the UNWRA schools were safe.

Advertisement

Narrator:
According to UNRWA, Israeli forces have targeted a total of 190 UN-run facilities in the
course of the war. That’s despite the agency sharing the coordinates for each of its locations
well in advance. Two hundred and twenty UNRWA employees have been killed in Gaza over
the last year, making this the deadliest war for UN employees in United Nations history.

Sabreen Badwan:
During this war, everything changed. We went to live in a school for around three months,
then we were again warned to leave the area of the school because the Israelis told us it’s
not safe, it’s deadly and dangerous. So we left the school terrified, not knowing where to go,
as bombs were exploding. We were terrified. We didn’t know where to go. There was
nowhere for us to go. We went to a house: we were bombed. We went to a school: we were
bombed. Where should we go then? What do we do?

Ni’ma Ramlawi:
What should we do? Our entire house was flattened and we were displaced to Al Nuseirat,
and from there we came here. They took us to the schools. We were in Al Razi and then
they [the Israelis] took us.

Narrator:
Death has touched each and every person in Gaza since Oct. 7.

Advertisement

Ni’ma Ramlawi:
They hit our home, so we left — it collapsed on us. Our neighbors were killed. The entire
block behind us was destroyed. Our house collapsed.

Sabreen Badwan:
My father was killed at the beginning of the war. This saddened and preoccupied me a lot.
Especially because I couldn’t say goodbye to him. He was north of the Gaza river and I was
here south of the Gaza river. So I couldn’t say farewell, and this impacted me and my mental state.

Sami Isa Ramadan:
The war has affected everyone. There isn’t a family in the Gaza Strip that hasn’t been
injured by the occupation forces. The one who lost his dad, the one who lost his siblings,
there’s no family — me, my family is small, and approximately 20 people have gone. This
was my boys’ birthday party, in our modest and simple home.

Narrator:
The UN children’s agency has described Gaza as “a graveyard for children.” Children have
died from bombs, bullets, disease, and malnutrition at an alarming rate. And mental health
issues such as speech impediments and PTSD affect almost every child.

Advertisement

Ni’ma Ramlawi:
The war has affected children and young people badly.

Sami Isa Ramadan:
The children, my children, for example. For the basics, mosquitoes — we haven’t got a
solution. Aside from the skin diseases that have spread, the epidemics that have affected
the old and the young. As you can see, I’m sure you have seen the suffering of the children,
especially the children.

Ni’ma Ramlawi:
What? After a year of war? What more do they want to happen to us? Hunger! Everyone is
hungry. And they died of hunger. And with this war, they killed us and killed our children.
They’re martyrs. They bombed our homes. There’s no house left for us to live in — neither
us nor our children. Are we going to stay like this in tents? And the winter is coming, too.
Look at how we are. Exhaustion and sickness— we are grown adults and we can’t manage
our mental state. There’s children — my grandson has malnutrition grade 2 from the
situation we are in.

Narrator:
Ruined infrastructure, open sewage, a lack of hospitals and medication, and communicable
disease have now become a threat for the people of Gaza.

Advertisement

Shohda Abu Ajweh:
God has afflicted us, aside from the war, with another war: the war of diseases and no
medications. I mean, my grandchildren are suffering from chicken pox, we haven’t found any medications. Not to mention the contaminated water and the open sewage. The Israelis
targeted infrastructure on purpose to provoke the spread of disease. Right now the borders
are closed. People are not receiving any aid, so people are suffering. They’re suffering from
everything, from a lack of everything. We ask Allah to remove this affliction and to help all
our people.

Riadh al Drimli:
Even if things were available, there’s no money to buy it. It’s really expensive! And there’s no income on top, I’m telling you. For example, I make 20 shekels ($5.30). What am I going to do with that 20 shekels ($5.30)? I can buy some drinking water or bring something for the house? It’s not enough!

Narrator:
Riad al Drimli used to work as an electrician, since October 7th, he was displaced alongside
his family and is now selling falafel to try to make ends meet.

Riad al Drimli:
I mean, what can I say? A lot of suffering. From tent to tent and ants and worms. Maybe for
someone living in the rubble of their destroyed house would probably be nicer than the tents, the sewage, the water, and all the problems. Feel for us! You Arabs: rise up against these oppressors. Look at our suffering! Forget about us: what about our children! Our daughters! People are being slaughtered – and they are okay watching us bleed?

Advertisement

Marwan Ibrahim Salem:
My message to the whole world — the Arab world, to Europe, to East to West — to all — is
to stand with the oppressed people. Because this nation is oppressed. And oppression never
lasts. I ask for an end to the war, and the return of people to their homes, and the rebuilding
of our homes. That’s what I ask from the world.

I hope to return to my home! Me and my wife. People want to return to their land! To return to Gaza city, to our neighborhood. To our families. To see who’s good, and who’s dead.

Sami Isa Ramadan:
To this day, the bodies of my relatives are still buried under the rubble, from
the early days of the war. All the buildings you see here, they were bombed with people in them, they collapsed on people’s backs. On people’s heads. There’s no phone call, warning you: ‘Hello, you need to leave the house’ —- no —- the house is flattened with people still inside. This is a cowardly and savage army. It has no humanity.

I have experienced the most bitter experience here. For me, the worst experience I have
ever had is living in a tent. We are the living dead, here in this tent. A death sentence. We
have been sentenced to death — they just haven’t carried out the execution. And our faith is
in God. It’s in God’s hands.

Advertisement

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Partial win for Man City in challenge to Premier League sponsorship rules

Published

on

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The Premier League’s rules on commercial agreements between football club owners and related companies are unlawful, a tribunal has found, following a legal challenge from Manchester City that will force some of the regulations to be rewritten. 

City, which is owned by a member of the Abu Dhabi ruling family, challenged the league’s so-called Associated Party Transaction rules earlier this year, claiming that they had unfairly blocked sponsorship deals, including one with Abu Dhabi-based airline Etihad. 

Advertisement

The Premier League’s APT rules were brought in after Newcastle United was acquired by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund in late 2021, and updated again earlier this year.

The regulations were designed to prevent companies related to club owners from using inflated sponsorship deals to boost revenue and so give teams greater leeway to spend on players. 

Although an independent panel rejected several of City’s claims, and recognised the Premier League’s need for an assessment mechanism for related party deals, it deemed the current rules “unlawful” under UK competition law.

This was principally because the rules excluded shareholder loans from their assessment. Several Premier League clubs rely on interest-free loans from their owners but — unlike sponsorship deals — loans are not required to meet “fair market value” criteria. 

Advertisement

The tribunal also found that the way APTs are assessed was unlawful on a procedural basis, with clubs denied important information before decisions were made.

The ruling means the Premier League’s original assessment of two City sponsorship deals, including the Etihad deal in question, no longer stand. Etihad is already the club’s front of shirt sponsor and has naming rights over its stadium.

The Premier League said that a “small number of discrete elements” in its rule book would now need updating, but that the changes could be done “quickly and effectively”.

City’s partial victory on the APT rules comes as a separate independent committee hears the case brought by the Premier League against the club related to 115 alleged financial rule breaches stretching over many years. A verdict in that case is expected in the new year.

Advertisement

After being acquired by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan in 2008, City has become the dominant force in English football. The club has won the Premier League six times in the past seven years, and last year won the Uefa Champions League for the first time.

Monday’s ruling is the latest in a string of legal challenges against football’s rulemakers.

On Friday, the European Court of Justice said the current rules set by global governing body Fifa regarding football transfers were unlawful, while the same court ruled late last year that Fifa and its European counterpart Uefa had breached competition law during their response to the aborted European Super League.  

City’s battle against the league is another example of how football clubs are increasingly taking the legal route to determine the rules that underpin the competition. It is a recognition of how the rules off the pitch — not just star players — can influence winners and losers on the pitch.

Advertisement

The Premier League said the verdict “endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system”. The league said it would now add shareholder loans to its assessments and remove some of the amendments brought in earlier this year. 

“The tribunal upheld the need for the APT system as a whole and rejected the majority of Manchester City’s challenges. Moreover, the tribunal found that the rules are necessary in order for the League’s financial controls to be effective,” it added. 

City said it welcomed the findings of the tribunal. “The club has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction rules have been found to be unlawful and the Premier League’s decisions on two specific MCFC sponsorship transactions have been set aside,” it said.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com