Dear Friends, The Bill of Rights is a shield to guard the people – individuals – against the power, overreach, and abuse of government itself. The freedom of speech, assembly and religion, the right to a speedy trial by a jury of your peers, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure, and the right to keep and bear arms to preserve those freedoms – these are for the individual. Each Amendment is a link in the chain that binds government in servitude to the people. Lately, federal bureaucrats and elected officials are complaining that the Bill of Rights is getting in the way of their big government agenda, chafing uncomfortably under these guarantees of freedom for individuals. They claim the First Amendment is burdensome when it comes to regulating political speech. That’s good. That means our Constitution is working exactly as intended. The New York Times, once the pinnacle of journalism, recently ran an article blasting the Constitution as dangerous if it could ever allow Donald Trump to become president, and maybe it’s best to scrap the whole thing. The article even called originalist interpretations of the Constitution to be “Constitution-worship.” Not to be outdone, the New Yorker just a few weeks ago ran an article entitled “Is It Time to Torch The Constitution?” The article included particular interest in expanding the Supreme Court and getting rid of the electoral college – two perennial favorites from the Left when it comes to political daydreams. Cleary there is no shortage of irony in newspapers decrying the freedom of speech protected by the very Constitution they propose to discard. At the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, millionaire climate czar John Kerry bemoaned the restrictions of the First Amendment as insufficient to ban speech unfavorable to the climate change agenda, or discouraging people from getting vaccinations. Kerry referred to the First Amendment as a “major block” in preventing people from believing the wrong things. And in the most extreme and hilarious example, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom is supporting censorship of online content including political satire, memes, and parody. In a real-life response, the Babylon Bee, a website known for its wry political wit, sued the state. A court quickly struck down the California law as blatantly unconstitutional. Newsom should have stuck with banning diesel vehicles, natural gas stoves, and plastic straws and grocery bags. If you are passing a law to ban satire, you’ve already lost. You’ve become the mustachioed villain of a Christmas cartoon special trying to take away everyone’s toys. We’ve seen countless examples of collusion between Big Tech, Big Media, and the weaponization of our own government, attempting to regulate speech by “fact-checking” posts and suppressing content that runs counter to an administrative agenda or pushing content that supports it. Some may say that platforms such as Twitter or Facebook choosing to regulate speech content is their right as a company. However, when Government is in the shadows holding the carrot and stick of regulation, taxes, franchises, and favorable rules, that crosses a very clear line. It is a fair criticism to say our Republic is not the most nimble form of government. Our system, by design, is not swift in making decisions or taking actions. But the trade-off is the more swiftly a government moves, the more easily it crushes the rights of the individual. In absolutist systems – monarchies, dictatorships and despots of both right and left – protecting the individual is a far lower priority than protecting the state itself and the interests of its agents and their favorites. Our Republic is specifically designed to do the opposite, and the freedom of speech is rightfully enshrined in the very first Amendment listed. The vitality of our Republic depends on the debate of ideas, not the suppression. The importance of free speech in a free society cannot be overstated and one cannot exist without the other. As Voltaire once wrote, “I wholly disapprove of what you say – and will defend to the death your right to say it.” That’s the whole point. Our Constitution is seen cynically by some as a handful of gravel into the gearbox of government, especially by those seeking to preserving their own power. However, the proper role of government is to first serve the people and protect their rights in every possible circumstance. We should keep a close watch on politicians and entities who consider any of our constitutional freedoms a roadblock. For them, our liberty is not a priority, and our freedom is an inconvenience. Best regards, Not yet subscribed to the Labrador Letter? Click HERE to get our weekly newsletter and updates. Miss an issue? Labrador Letters are archived on the Attorney General website.
All primary schools, Early Learning and Childcare (ELC), Intensive Support Provision (ISP) settings and Fairview School in Perth and Kinross will be closed on Monday October 21 because of industrial action taken by UNISON in a national dispute over pay.
All secondary schools except St John’s Academy (Secondary) in Perth and the Community School of Auchterarder, will be open on Monday. All secondary ISP provision will be closed. Navigate will be open.
Due to the October holidays, it has not been possible, as previously indicated, to complete Risk Assessments for our primaries and ELC settings. This means we cannot guarantee there will be enough staff to ensure pupil safety and so have taken the decision to close these settings.
The situation will be reviewed daily during the two weeks of industrial action planned by UNISON.
It is possible a small number of primary schools will be able to open later in the week. However, the situation is likely to remain fluid and may change for individual schools on a day-to-day basis. We will continue to provide updates when necessary. Schools will also email parents and carers about their arrangements on Monday.
Where schools are closed before and after school care (Breakfast Clubs, Kids Clubs and Wraparound Care) will also be closed.
Remote learning will be provided when schools are closed to pupils as teachers are not taking part in the industrial action.
Payments will be made to families whose children are eligible Free School Meals because their families are in receipt of qualifying benefits.
We thank you for your understanding.
Leisure services provided at our four community campuses (Breadalbane, Loch Leven, North Inch and Strathearn) are also likely to be disrupted because of the industrial action.
The following activities will still be able to proceed:
Block Booked, Club/Group activity – Indoor and Outdoor
Instructor / Coach led activity – Swimming Lessons, Gymnastics, Fitness Classes etc.
When someone famous dies, particularly if they are young or it was unexpected, it is natural for their fans to want to know what happened. But, as the reporting on the tragic death of singer Liam Payne shows, the media does not always handle this appropriately or ethically.
The singer, 31, fell to his death from the third floor of a hotel in Buenos Aires while under the influence of “drugs or alcohol”, local police said. LA-based celebrity news website TMZ initially reported the story alongside graphic images of Payne’s body.
After a backlash, TMZ removed the photos, but executive editor Michael Babock defended publication, claiming the site was “trying to confirm reports Liam had died before police had established his identity”.
Other mainstream outlets published transcripts or recordings of a 911 call made to police shortly before Payne was found, and an Argentinian newspaper published images of Payne’s hotel room which included images of drugs paraphernalia.
This is certainly not the first time the media, and TMZ in particular, has come under fire for insensitive or harmful reporting of celebrity deaths. When basketball great Kobe Bryant died in a helicopter crash in January 2020, TMZ shared the news before police were able to notify his family. Bryant’s widow later testified that she learned of her husband and daughter’s deaths through social media. This breaches the UK’s journalism codes of practice.
In their quest to get a scoop, what precautions and sensitivities do journalists have to respect when it comes to reporting sudden and tragic deaths?
Media guidelines and ethics
The ethical standards and guidelines vary from country to country. In the UK,
these are set out by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) and independent press monitor Impress for print media, and by Ofcom for broadcasters.
An Ipso clause around intrusion into grief and shock says journalists should make enquiries with “sympathy and discretion” and publication should be handled “sensitively”.
Ofcom has similar guidelines for broadcasters. The section on privacy states: “When people are caught up in events which are covered by the news they still have a right to privacy.”
This can be infringed if “warranted”, says Ofcom, for example if it is in the public interest. This could include revealing or detecting crime, protecting public health or safety, exposing misleading claims or disclosing incompetence. But a tragic death, even of a high profile person, is unlikely to meet this standard.
Broadcasters should not interview or film people who have experienced a personal tragedy unless it is “warranted” or they have given consent. And journalists are advised not to “reveal the identity of someone who has died unless it is clear that the next of kin have been informed”.
Impress, which regulates more independent journalism, has released a statement condemning the reporting of Payne’s death.
It said: “The defence of publishing in the public interest does not give outlets carte blanche to report the most intimate details of a celebrity’s life, or their death.”
It is important to state at this stage that what happened prior to Payne’s tragic death and his intentions at the time are unknown. It is the job of the coroner to investigate and come to a conclusion at his inquest.
The effect of reporting on tragedy
Beyond accuracy and respect for the victim of a tragedy and their family, there are wider concerns that journalists should take into account.
Research conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) has shown irresponsible media reporting of celebrity deaths, particularly suicides, can increase suicide rates.
One study examining patterns of suicide and media coverage found that in the five months following comic Robin Williams’ death in 2014, there were 1,841 more deaths from suicide in the USA compared to the same period the previous year – a 9.85% rise.
The WHO’s international guidelines for reporting suicide urge the media to avoid sensationalism. Journalists should not provide details about methods, and should include information about mental health resources in stories.
Analysis of over 100 academic studies found repeated coverage and high-profile news stories were most strongly associated with copycat behaviour.
The WHO states: “Such stories can inadvertently function as celebrity endorsements of suicidal behaviour and it is known that celebrity endorsements can have an impact on behaviour of the public.”
Sensitive reporting can reduce the risk of copycat suicides. Providing context in relation to mental health challenges and offering resources for support is vital.
In the UK, guidelines were first drawn up by the Samaritans charity in 1994 to improve reporting on suicide and prevent copycat attempts. These are taught to journalism students on courses accredited by the National Council for the Training of Journalists.
Guidance includes avoiding “dramatic” headlines, emotive or sensational pictures or video footage and excessive amounts of coverage. Not speculating about the trigger or cause is urged, because it can oversimplify the issue.
“Coverage that reflects the wider issues around suicide, including that it is preventable, can help reduce the risk of suicidal behaviour”, the guidelines state. “Include clear and direct references to resources and support organisations.”
Making a change
Despite all of these guidelines, many media outlets flout them in the race for clicks. It is heartening that there has been so much outrage at the publication of the images of Payne, but some members of the public still seem to have an insatiable appetite for it. Nothing, it seems, is off limits.
We need to take collective responsibility. Journalists and editors should reacquaint themselves with responsible reporting guidelines and put themselves in the bereaved family’s shoes. Members of the public can also do their bit by not clicking on or sharing this kind of material, so editorial priorities change.
Ultimately, our thoughts must be with Payne and his loved ones. A death so young is a real tragedy and those who loved him will be affected for the rest of their lives.
If you’re struggling with suicidal thoughts, the following services can provide you with support:
In the UK and Ireland – call Samaritans UK at 116 123.
In the US – call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or IMAlive at 1-800-784-2433.
In Australia – call Lifeline Australia at 13 11 14.
In other countries – visit IASP or Suicide.org to find a helpline in your country.
Polly Rippon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: Traditional Unionist Voice – Northern Ireland
Statement by TUV deputy leader Court Councillor Ron McDowell:
“The questions surrounding Sinn Fein when it comes to the issue of child safety continue to grow in number and there will be few who will be filled with confidence that the decision of some member of the Executive Office Committee to furnish Ms O’Neill with their questions in advance of the meeting is a route which is likely to get to the truth. However, in addition to those profoundly important issues we now have confirmation that the IRA “Army Council” continues to exist, that the IRA is still involved in gathering intelligence, that it retains arms 19 years after they were supposedly decommissioned and that the IRA’s “Army Council” continues to oversee Sinn Féin’s overarching strategy.
“Child safety is profound enough an issue to call into question the suitability of anyone to hold office. After this morning’s confirmation that nothing has changed when it comes to the IRA and the role of its leadership in Sinn Fein surely all Unionist MLAs will be queuing up to sign the TUV motion of no confidence on Monday morning?
“Any Unionist who doesn’t sign it obviously does have confidence in Ms O’Neill. One is given to wonder what on earth Sinn Fein/IRA would have to do in order to lose it.”
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amanda Cole, Lecturer in Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex
On October 21 1964, the iconic and much-celebrated film My Fair Lady premiered in Hollywood. Sixty years later, the film remains an enjoyable rollick full of catchy songs, but is not a wholly accurate depiction of what linguists do – certainly not nowadays at least.
Linguists are far from the academics who are most frequently depicted in films. It’s normally the white-coat, work-in-a-lab, scientist-of-some-nondescript-sort professors who get to give stark warnings or unsettling research insights to the maverick protagonist. But My Fair Lady is a film all about linguistics (and also class, love and terrible Cockney accents – more on that later).
In the film, Professor Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison), takes under his wing a Cockney flower seller called Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn). He wagers with his friend and fellow haughty linguist, Colonel Pickering, that he can teach her to speak “properly”.
It seems at first there is no hope but – hoorah! – Eliza finally grasps it, suddenly blurting out “the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain” in a perfect imitation of Queen’s English.
Doolittle then dazzles at an embassy ball, the perfect replica of an upstanding posh woman – or, as the film’s title suggests, a “lady” (itself a problematic word which encodes sexist tropes about what should be aspirational and respectable for women).
She even fools a man who has made a name for himself by identifying imposters based on their accent. Though, you may also wonder if she evades detection by barely speaking at the ball, converted into a demure and unforthcoming shadow of her previously forthright, unapologetic and garrulous self.
Professor Higgins: not your typical linguist
My Fair Lady avoids the common pitfall of assuming that the primary endeavour of the linguist is to learn as many different languages as they can, collecting them like stamps (the film Arrival can take note). But it still doesn’t get our job quite right.
I, for one, have never groomed a young, destitute woman to speak “correctly” while moulding her into a “respectable”, posh woman (if only modern academia granted the breathing space for such folly).
Linguists love, celebrate and are constantly itching to understand, study and explore the diverse tapestry of accents, dialects and languages that exist in the UK and around the world. We have no interest in reinforcing any societal ideal for a supposedly “correct” accent, or throwing a grammar rule book at unwitting members of the public.
By contrast, Higgins is repulsed by any accent that is not Queen’s English (which, by a wonderful turn of luck, is also his accent). In the opening number, he has a pop at the dialects of Yorkshire, Cornwall, America, Scotland and Ireland.
But he is particularly dismayed and repulsed that Doolittle, despite being from London, has a strong London accent (or she is meant to at least – I can only imagine Hepburn was instructed to open her mouth as wide as possible for all vowels and caw like a crow if all else fails).
Higgins makes various proclamations which will have you shouting at the telly, “Steady on, Professor!”. In his words:
Look at her, a prisoner of the gutter / Condemned by every syllable she ever utters / By right, she should be taken out and hung for the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue.
Best not tell him “hanged” is the past tense of “hang” when referring to capital punishment, else he walk himself straight to the gallows.
With a little bit of accent prejudice
The real beast in disguise at the embassy ball is not young, Cockney, Eliza Doolittle. It is misogyny and contempt for the working class that hides behind a mask of maintaining good standards and protecting the English language.
Accent prejudice is a smokescreen for broader societal prejudice. My Fair Lady seems antiquated and quaint in many ways – like Higgins using a gramophone to play back recordings of Doolittle – but accent prejudice is alive and well.
Women in the UK such as Alex Scott, Angela Rayner and Priti Patel still routinely face criticism, commentary and contempt for their regional accents.
You might think that the film’s lesson is for Doolittle to take on the world with her freshly mastered “standard” accent. After all, she consented to being ridiculed and paraded around like a show dog as she felt her accent prevented her from getting a job in a flower shop. Now, nothing stands in her way.
But people should not have to change their accent to get along – and it is not always possible or even a guaranteed ticket out of discrimination. If we take the accent out of accent prejudice, we are still left with the prejudice – let’s remove the prejudice and be left with the accent.
We need more unapologetically working-class women with regional accents at the embassy ball, but also in politics, academia, in the media and in all walks of life.
In the film, Doolittle ultimately feels she has been used and disrespected, leading her to sour on Higgins. After she leaves, he grows to miss her and wistfully plays back recordings of her voice.
And this is the real lesson for viewers today. Higgins has gotten to know Doolittle as a person and now sees beyond her accent and his own prejudice. The more we hear people with regional accents, the more normal and uneventful it becomes, and the more we will focus on what they say and not how they say it.
Amanda Cole does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Foreign Secretary David Lammy met Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China, Wang Yi, in Beijing today.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy met Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China, Wang Yi, in Beijing today (18 October).
The Foreign Secretary set out that as fellow Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, it is a necessity that the UK and China increase bilateral engagement. He made clear that, as global players, both countries have an obligation to work together to find pragmatic solutions to complex challenges.
Areas of pragmatic, mutually beneficial cooperation were clear. This included working together on achieving the global green transition; making greater efforts on development and global health; and the safe use of AI. The Foreign Secretary reiterated his commitment to promoting secure and resilient growth through increased trade and investment which creates jobs, drives innovation, boosts productivity and provides economic stability and certainty for the UK economy. They agreed that the UK and China can support both countries’ growth objectives, with China as the world’s second largest economy and the UK’s 4th largest trading partner.
The Foreign Secretary also raised a number of foreign policy and security matters, including Russia’s war in Ukraine, where he stated how both the UK and China have a shared interest in European peace and ending the war. He reaffirmed that concerns over China’s supply of equipment to Russia’s military industrial complex risks damaging China’s relationships with Europe whilst helping to sustain Russia’s war. The Foreign Secretary urged Wang Yi to take all measures to investigate and to prevent Chinese companies from supplying Russia’s military. The Foreign Ministers agreed to continue to discuss this and other broader foreign policy issues, such as the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
Human Rights were discussed, including in Xinjiang, and the Foreign Secretary referenced this as an area which the UK and China must engage, even where viewpoints diverge. Hong Kong is a shared interest, and the Foreign Secretary raised serious concerns around the implementation of the National Security Law and the ongoing treatment of British national Jimmy Lai, again calling for his release.
The meeting was constructive across the full breadth of the bilateral relationship, from areas of pragmatic cooperation to issues of contention. Both the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Minister agreed that maintaining channels of communication was essential and committed to holding regular discussions across their respective governments at Ministerial level.
A Banbridge man has been convicted in court for being the keeper of a Bully dog which mauled and seriously injured a man two years ago.
On Thursday 17 October, Gabriel McCauley of Ballygowan Park was convicted of a dog control offence under Article 29 of the Dogs (NI) Order 1983 (as amended) for being the keeper of a Bully dog which attacked another person.
In response to the attack, which occurred on October 3, 2022 at Havelock Park, the Dog Warden team from Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council attended the scene alongside police officers. The dog was brought under control before being humanely destroyed.
At Banbridge Magistrates Court, sitting in Newry on Thursday – Mr McCauley was found guilty of the offence and was fined £500, with a £15 offenders levy and the Council awarded costs of £300.
A Council spokesperson welcomed the conviction for the attack, and said it was important that all owners of XL Bully dogs comply with the new laws for keeping these dogs.
“This was an extremely serious attack which has left the victim with life-changing injuries, so it is welcome that the owner is brought before court and convicted,” they said.
“We want to emphasise that the Council operates a rigorous enforcement policy on dog control, and we also want to ensure that everyone is aware of the new rules around owning these XL Bully dogs.
“Owners need to keep their dog muzzled and on a lead when in public places. The dog must be kept in secure conditions that will stop it from escaping.
“Furthermore, owners are not allowed to breed, sell, exchange, gift or abandon an XL Bully type dog.”
Across Northern Ireland, it will be illegal to own an XL Bully dog without an Exemption Certificate from January 1, 2025. The application process for XL Bully dog exemptions is now open and will close on December 31, 2024.
CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ: (As interpreted.) Mr. President.
(Speaking English.) Dear Joe, it is my great pleasure to welcome you here to the Chancellery in Berlin as a friend of Europe, as a friend of Germany, and, above all, as my friend. Welcome.
(As interpreted.) Dear Joe, our cooperation the past three years was extraordinarily close and full of trust. I know that this is not something that we can take for granted, even among good partners as the U.S. and Germany have been for many, many decades.
I would like to take this opportunity here and today to express my gratitude and say thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
The times in which we’re living are extremely challenging indeed. With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, war has returned back to Europe. The European security order has been shaken in its very foundations.
It is all the more important that we reacted decisively and stood closely together and unequivocably condemned this blatant violation of international law and stand by our Ukrainian friends’ side.
It is thanks to your leadership that Putin’s plans failed, that Ukraine wasn’t overrun within a few days. But it is thanks to the bravery of Ukrainian armed forces and the support of many states — above all, the United States and Germany — Ukraine stands up to imperialist Russia since more than two and a half years.
Together, we commit to Ukraine’s sovereignty and integrity so that Russia cannot subjugate Ukraine by force. We stand by Ukraine’s side as long as it is necessary. Putin has miscalculated. He cannot sit and ride out this war.
Together, therefore, we decided, with our G7 partners, to support Ukraine with a loan package to the tune of 50 billion U.S. dollars by the end of this year.
Together, we commit to a strong NATO Alliance which defends every square inch of its territory. Every member of our alliance can rely on that. And together, we commit to the fundamental principles of the free world as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
Mr. President, from the very beginning of the war, we closely coordinated ourselves across the Atlantic. It has made us strong. It has made the Alliance strong, and we will continue to do that.
Our position is clear. We continue to support Ukraine as strongly as possible. At the same time, we are making sure that NATO does not become a party to this war so that this war does not lead to an even bigger catastrophe. We are very much aware of this responsibility, and no one can shoulder this responsibility for us.
Of course, the situation in the Middle East is also on our agenda. The barbaric terrorist attacks of Hamas on Israel of October 7th has massively destabilized the situation.
Israel has the right to defend itself. It is important to me to say this very clearly. We stand by Israel’s side, and we fully agree that it is now more important than ever before to prevent further escalation and a regional conflagration.
With the death of Hamas leader Sinwar, who was responsible for the horrific terrorist attacks, we hopefully now see a tangible prospect of a ceasefire in Gaza, an agreement that leads to the release of hostages held by Hamas.
Joe, your efforts — we always supported your efforts in this conflict, and we will continue to do so. Our common objective remains a credible political process towards a two-state solution, and we will continue to be fully committed to that.
In Lebanon, we’re working towards a situation that the conflict leads to a diplomatic process as soon as possible. It is clear the people in Northern Israel have to be able to live free of fear and insecurity. Lebanon deserves a future in self-determination, stability, and security.
Originally, your visit was scheduled to take place last Friday and had to be postponed due to the severe hurricanes. And I’m delighted that you were able to come today. It affords us the opportunity to talk about the challenging global situation in great detail bilaterally but also together with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, who will join us later.
In my view, we need such talks at highest levels to make progress in the most important, pressing issues.
(In English.) Joe, thanks again for taking the time for this visit. It is a strong signal of our transatlantic unity and of our friendship.
Please.
PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, Chancellor — Olaf, it’s great to see you again, and I do apologize for having to cancel the first time around, but we did have a crisis in our southeastern border with hurricanes and tornadoes. But we’re here because Germany is — Germany is my country’s closest and most important of allies.
When Putin launched his brutal invasion in Ukraine, you reminded us all why this alliance is so essential. Under your leadership, Chancellor, Germany rose to meet the moment. You showed the wisdom to recognize that this war marked a turning point in the history, an assault on the very principles of the protected peace and security in Europe for more than 75 years.
And then you summoned the resolve to act, remaking Germany’s foreign policy to reckon new realities — with new realities to stand strong and steadfast with Ukraine.
America and Germany are the two largest supporters of Ukraine in its fight for survival as a free and independent nation. As Ukraine faces a tough winter, we must — we must sustain our resolve, our effort, and our support.
And I know the cost is heavy, but make no mistake, it pales in comparison to the cost of living in the world where aggression prevails, where large states attack and bully smaller ones simply because they can.
Today, the chancellor and I are going to discuss ongoing efforts to surge support to Ukraine’s military; to shore up Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure, which is under constant assault and bombardment from Russia; and to help Ukraine recover by unlocking the value of frozen Russian assets.
I also want to recognize Germany’s decision to spend 2 percent of your gross domestic product on defense. Please keep it up, because it matters.
Our alliance with Germany extends far beyond Ukraine and Europe. It’s global.
Today, the chancellor and I will discuss regional security in the Middle East, including the ongoing domestic efforts regarding Lebanon and Gaza.
The death of the leader of Hamas represents a moment of justice. He had the blood of Americans and Israelis, Palestinians and Germans, and so many others on his hands.
I told the prime minister of Israel yesterday: Let’s also make this moment an opportunity to seek a path to peace, a better future in Gaza without Hamas. And I look forward to discussing Iran.
Olaf and I spoke the morning after Iran launched 200 ballistic missiles at Israel earlier this month. With our G7 counterparts, we agreed to coordinate our response through sanctions and other measures, and that is what we have done.
I’m grateful for Germany’s cooperation holding Iran accountable for destabilizing policies, including providing missiles and drones to Russia to use against Ukraine.
And just this week, the European Union followed Germany, the UK, and France in sanctioning Iran’s leading airlines. This followed our own oil sanctions. This coordination is going to have to continue.
I also want to thank Germany for standing firm against a vicious surge of antisemitism, hatred, and extremism we’re witnessing today. Some of it fueled by foreign misinformation.
As domestic — as democratic allies, we have to remain ever vigilant against what I call the “old ghosts in new garments,” ancient hatreds resurfacing. Our charge is to make sure that the forces holding our societies together and binding us in the common cause of human dignity and freedom remain stronger — stronger than the forces seeking to pull us apart.
And finally, Chancellor, I deeply appreciate your partnership and the many times you’ve forsaken the easy choice to make the right choice. Your act of statesmanship and friendship has made possible the safe return and unjustly detained Americans and Germans and the reunion of brave Russian dissidents to their families. I want to thank you, thank you, thank you.
I value our conversations, and I look forward to them — this one is — particularly. And I want to — I really mean it — I want to thank you for your friendship, not only personally, but I don’t see how we maintain stability in Europe and around the world without a tight German-U.S. relationship. And you’re the leader to do it.
Of the many stereotypes about Germany — our sense of humor — (laughter) — our spontaneity, our irresistible joie de vivre — (laughter) — only one is really true: We are good at keeping records.
So, 44 and a half years ago, when the young Senator Joseph Biden came to Bonn, a German civil servant — ein guter Beamter, as we like to say — made a note — a rather extensive one, I should say — of this senator’s visit. And being Germans, you understand, we still have that note. (Laughter.) (Holds up a document.) This one. Many pages.
(Speaks German.) (No translation provided.)
That’s the content — the main content of report: “He is keenly interested in the Federal Republic of Germany,” the note concludes. And it adds, “that this senator might look to a,” I quote again, “significant political future.” (Laughter.) “Significant.” What a remarkable understatement.
Today, you are the 46th President of the United States. And under your leadership, the transatlantic alliance is stronger and our partnership is closer than ever.
Mr. President, you are keenly interested in Germany. That we have known for almost half a century. So, it is time for you to know that Germany, in turn, is deeply grateful to you.
Let me say, in the name of my country, thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)
For Germany, the friendship with the United States has been, is now, and will always be existentially important — existential both for our security and our democracy.
And yet, in this friendship, there have been and always will be times of proximity and greater distance, times of agreement and times of discord. Even recently, just a handful years ago, the distance had grown so wide that we almost lost each other.
But — but, ladies and gentlemen, throughout the ups and downs of time, there have been people who have stood by the transatlantic relations no matter what. And chief among those people, Mr. President, is you.
You stand with us, sir, because you know that what binds us is so much deeper than the news of the day. What binds us is freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.
What binds us is the conviction that if liberal democracy is to have a future in this troubled world, we have to secure it together.
And what binds us are the lessons from our past — sacred lessons that you described so hauntingly in your letter to our beloved Margot Friedländer.
Sir, when you were elected president, you restored Europe’s hope in the transatlantic alliance literally overnight. And then, only a year later, came Putin’s war.
When Putin invaded Ukraine, he didn’t just go after one country. He attacked the very principles of peace in Europe.
Putin thought we would be weak. He thought we would be divided. But the opposite was true. NATO was stronger and more united than ever, and that is, in no small part, Mr. President, thanks to your leadership.
Mr. President, to have you in our most dangerous moment since the Cold War, to have you and your administration on our side is no less than a historical stroke of good fortune.
For us here in Europe, the past two years have shown once again, America truly is the indispensable nation. But it has also shown something else. NATO is the indispensable alliance.
So, in the months to come, I hope that Europeans remember America is indispensable for us, and I hope that Americans remember your allies are indispensable for you.
We are more than just other countries in the world. We are partners. We are friends.
The choice on November the 5th is only Americans’ choice to make. But we, as Europeans, have a choice too. We have the choice to do our part, to be unwavering in our support for Ukraine, to invest in our common security, to invest in our shared future, and, as you have done, sir, to stand by the transatlantic alliance no matter what.
Mr. President, when I visited you in the Oval Office a year ago on October the 6th, just a few hours before Hamas’ brutal attack on Israel, we spoke about the Middle East. We spoke about Ukraine and Russia. But at the end — I will never forget that — at the end of our conversation, you went to your desk and handed me a speech of yours not on foreign policy but on the issue that you care most about and that you worry most about — about democracy.
I quote, “Democracies don’t have to die at the end of a rifle,” you say in that speech. “Democracies can die when people are silent, when they are willing to give away that which is most precious to them because they feel frustrated, tired, alienated.” End of the quote.
Your words, Mr. President, echoed deeply in our part of the world, and they weigh even more heavily coming from the leader of the world’s oldest and most time-tested democracy.
So, let me say this from the bottom of my heart. In this time when democracy is under strain all around the Western world, you, Mr. President, have been a beacon of democracy.
You are a beacon not just by what you have done but by who you are, by the example of your humility, your deep connection with the lives and hopes of hardworking people, and, if you excuse that old-fashioned word, by your decency.
Decency is maybe what we are most at risk of losing. But your decency, sir, is a light that shines very far. It certainly reached the hearts of my fellow Germans.
As U.S. president, you command the most powerful military. You lead the biggest economy in the world. But maybe the most precious service to democracy, the most joyful and reassuring thing for people is to know that even this most powerful man in the world is, in the end, a fundamentally decent human being.
Mr. President, we all know that you love your Irish poets and that you know them well. I have heard you quote Seamus Heaney from memory, so I hope you allow me to end with a quote from his “Republic of Conscience.”
I quote, “At their inauguration, public leaders must swear to uphold unwritten law and weep to atone for the presumption to hold office.”
“The presumption to hold office,” Mr. President. It seems that you have always had a deep sense of the inevitable presumption in holding office, including the highest office — in being elevated above others, in a society of equals.
You have transformed this presumption into a deep sense of responsibility, and you have carried that responsibility throughout your career and have now decided, in the most noble tradition of American leaders since Washington, to let democracy run its ever-changing and uncharted course.
Mr. President, on the historic occasion of your visit to Germany, my country recognizes your decades-long dedication to the transatlantic alliance, your outstanding political leadership in Europe’s most dangerous moment, and your lasting moral example of service, sincerity, and decency.
It is now my great honor to bestow on you the Grand Cross special class of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany.
And for that, Mr. President — may I say, dear Joe — congratulations. (Applause.)
I have to read the document — one second — in German.
(Speaks German.) (No translation provided.) (Applause.)
(President Biden is presented the Grand Cross special class of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany.) (Applause.)
It’s done. (Laughs.) (Applause.)
PRESIDENT BIDEN: Let me begin by saying I — I’m overwhelmed not just by the award but by the words, Mr. President.
Margot Friedländer, you are a voice of conscience and healing. I’m actually honored to be in your presence, for real.
This award means so much to me for what it says about us, the journey we’ve taken; the alliance we’ve strengthened; the way that we have, as two separate nations, risen together to meet our moment.
I think it’s fair to say, although I know I only look like I’m 40 years old — (laughter) — I — I’ve seen a wide sweep of history.
When I was born, our countries were at war. As a young senator, I visited West Berlin and saw what it meant to live in a divided city, country, and continent. And I forged a bond with Helmut Schmidt, your — my first relationship of candor and trust with a German chancellor but, thankfully, not my last.
And then, in 1989, like millions of people around the world, I saw 70,000 brave souls gathered in Leipzig, crying — crying out for freedom. And the Berlin Wall came down 35 years ago this month.
It was one of the greatest advances in human dignity in my lifetime. Some feared the reunification of Germany would revive old hatreds and rivalries. But leaders of America and Germany dreamed together of a much better future.
The achievement of a Germany whole and free lives on, exceeding, I think, everyone’s expectations. The dream of Europe whole and free remains the work of our time, nor is that work more urgent than a pushing back against Putin’s vicious attack against Ukraine.
German leaders had the wisdom to recognize a turning point in history, an assault on a fellow democracy, and also on principles that upheld 75 years of peace and security in Europe.
Germany and the United States stood together to support the brave people of Ukraine in their fight for freedom, for democracy, for their very survival. And I want to thank every leader across Germany’s government who has worked tirelessly to ensure that Ukraine prevails and Putin fails, and NATO remains strong and more united than ever.
We head into a very difficult winter — (coughs) — but we cannot let up. We cannot — (an aide delivers a glass of water) — thank you so very much. That’s kind of you. (Laughs.)
We head to a dery — a very difficult winter. But we cannot let up. We must sustain our support. In my view, we must keep going until Ukraine wins a just and durable peace consistent with the U.N. Charter, until once again human dignity prevails.
Let me close with this. The times I have lived through have taught me that history does move forward and things can get better if we determine they must — that things can get better and that we should never underestimate the power of democracy, never underes- — -estimate the value of alliances.
Germany — Germany has taught us all that change is possible and, for better or for worse, countries can and do choose their own destinies and the choices that leaders make at critical times truly matters.
I want to thank the current leaders of Germany for the choice you’ve made when it matters most.
I hope you’ll forgive this once, but — if I forsake the great German poets and quote an Irish poet. (Laughter.)
Seamus Heaney said in “The Cure at Troy” — he said, “History teaches us not to hope on this side of the grave. But then — but then, once in a lifetime, a longed-for tidal wave of justice can rise up, and hope and history rhyme.”
When the Berlin Wall fell, hope and history rhymed. When Kyiv stood, hope and history rhymed.
Many Americans and Germans always find the wisdom and the courage. May they keep making hope and history rhyme, because we can, because nothing is beyond our capacity, in my view — nothing is beyond our capacity — when we do it together.
So, thank you again for this award. I’m honored to accept. I do not deserve, but I’m honored to accept. And that, if we continue to work together, Germany has stood up in a way that is incredible.
I want to thank you again for the award. And may God bless you all. And may God protect our troops.
MILES AXLE Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
Source: Moscow Exchange – Moscow Exchange –
Parameters;
The date of the deposit auction is 21.10.2024. The placement currency is RUB. The maximum amount of funds placed (in the placement currency) is 180,000,000.00. The placement period, days is 20. The date of depositing funds is 22.10.2024. The date of return of funds is 11.11.2024. The minimum placement interest rate, % per annum is 19.50. Terms of the conclusion, urgent or special (Urgent). The minimum amount of funds placed for one application (in the placement currency) is 180,000,000.00. The maximum number of applications from one Participant, pcs. 1. Auction form, open or closed (Open). The basis of the Agreement is the General Agreement. Schedule (Moscow time). Applications in preliminary mode from 10:30 to 10:40. Applications in competition mode from 10:40 to 10:45. Setting the cut-off percentage or declaring the auction invalid before 10:55.
Additional terms
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please note; This information is raw content directly from the information source. It is accurate to what the source is stating and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
MILES AXLE Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
Source: Moscow Exchange – Moscow Exchange –
10/18/2024
14:58
In accordance with the Methodology for determining the risk parameters of the stock market and deposit market of Moscow Exchange PJSC by NCO NCC (JSC), on 18.10.2024, 14-58 (Moscow time), the values of the lower limit of the repo price corridor with the settlement code Y0/Y1Dt (up to -45.33%), the transfer rate and the range of interest rate risk assessment (up to -0.23 rubles, equivalent to a rate of 70.77%) of the ALRS security (ALROSA ao) were changed.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please note; This information is raw content directly from the information source. It is accurate to what the source is stating and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
MILES AXLE Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
Source: Moscow Exchange – Moscow Exchange –
10/18/2024
13:23
In accordance with the Methodology for determining the risk parameters of the stock market and deposit market of Moscow Exchange PJSC by NCO NCC (JSC), on 18.10.2024, 13-23 (Moscow time), the values of the lower limit of the repo price corridor with the settlement code Y0/Y1Dt (up to -34.8%), the transfer rate and the range of interest rate risk assessment (up to -0.178 rubles, equivalent to a rate of 59.18%) of the ALRS security (ALROSA ao) were changed.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please note; This information is raw content directly from the information source. It is accurate to what the source is stating and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
MILES AXLE Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
Source: Moscow Exchange – Moscow Exchange –
10/18/2024
12:34
In accordance with the Methodology for determining the risk parameters of the stock market and deposit market of Moscow Exchange PJSC by NCO NCC (JSC), on 18.10.2024, 12-34 (Moscow time), the values of the upper limit of the price corridor (up to 86.98) and the range of market risk assessment (up to 956.79 rubles, equivalent to a rate of 19.25%) of the RU000A1031U3 (VEB1P-26) security were changed.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please note; This information is raw content directly from the information source. It is accurate to what the source is stating and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
MILES AXLE Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
Source: Moscow Exchange – Moscow Exchange –
10/18/2024
12:25
In accordance with the Methodology for determining the risk parameters of the stock market and deposit market of Moscow Exchange PJSC by NCO NCC (JSC), on 18.10.2024, 12-25 (Moscow time), the values of the upper limit of the price corridor (up to 84.88) and the range of market risk assessment (up to 934.73 rubles, equivalent to a rate of 16.5%) of the RU000A1031U3 (VEB1P-26) security were changed.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please note; This information is raw content directly from the information source. It is accurate to what the source is stating and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
MILES AXLE Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
Source: Central Bank of Russia –
The annual price growth slowed in September in 76 regions, most significantly in Sakhalin Oblast and the Chechen Republic.
The annual growth rate of food prices has slowed most noticeably. Sugar has become cheaper than a year ago, while fruit and vegetable products and eggs have risen more slowly.
The annual growth in prices for non-food products, in particular for cars, household appliances and electronics, has decreased.
The annual increase in prices for services remained almost as high as in August. Foreign tourism has increased in price the most over the year.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please note; This information is raw content directly from the information source. It is accurate to what the source is stating and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
MILES AXLE Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
Source: Moscow Exchange – Moscow Exchange –
10/18/2024
12:11
In accordance with the Methodology for determining the risk parameters of the stock market and deposit market of Moscow Exchange PJSC by NCO NCC (JSC), on 18.10.2024, 12-11 (Moscow time), the values of the upper limit of the price corridor (up to 82.78) and the range of market risk assessment (up to 912.67 rubles, equivalent to a rate of 13.75%) of the RU000A1031U3 (VEB1P-26) security were changed.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please note; This information is raw content directly from the information source. It is accurate to what the source is stating and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
The OISTE Foundation, Gold Sponsor of the Vargas Llosa Chair at its IV Annual Conference “A Gathering for Culture in Freedom”
Geneva, Switzerland – October 18, 2024: WISeKey International Holding Ltd. (“WISeKey” or the “Company”) (SIX: WIHN, NASDAQ: WKEY), a global leader in cybersecurity, digital identity, and Internet of Things (IoT) innovations, today announced that, in collaboration with the OISTE Foundation, Gold Sponsor of the Vargas Llosa Chair at its IV Annual Conference “A Gathering for Culture in Freedom,” it reaffirms its commitment to defending human rights in the digital environment. Since its founding in 1998, the OISTE Foundation has focused its efforts on ensuring that human rights are respected both online and offline. As digital technologies advance, they also present challenges in terms of privacy, digital identity, and the misuse of surveillance tools, raising concerns about data protection and online violence.
This commitment resonates with the values promoted by the Vargas Llosa Chair, which, since its establishment in 2011, has fostered the study of contemporary literature and supported freedom of expression. Both institutions share a common mission: to defend democratic principles and promote a culture of freedom and respect, both in the literary and digital realms.
The OISTE Foundation is committed to finding feasible solutions for digital identity management as an essential component of a knowledge society. OISTE led a workshop titled “Matching the Speed of the Running Code: Public Awareness and Digital Identity Management,” aimed at raising public awareness among internet users about the risks of the current environment and the threats to individual privacy rights.
Trust among users is at the core of OISTE’s trust model, which strives for legitimacy that can only be achieved through documented consensus. As part of its adherence to OISTE Foundation’s trust model, the foundation aims to promote the security of electronic communications worldwide, ensuring compliance with regulations related to information protection. The company is a leading advocate for protecting individual privacy rights online while enabling individuals to maximize their use of the Internet.
About WISeKey WISeKey is a Swiss-based computer infrastructure company specializing in cybersecurity, digital identity, blockchain, Internet of Things (IoT) solutions, and post-quantum semiconductors. As a computer infrastructure company, WISeKey provides secure platforms for data and device management across industries like finance, healthcare, and government. It leverages its Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) to ensure encrypted communications and authentication, while also focusing on next-generation security through post-quantum cryptography.
WISeKey’s work with post-quantum semiconductors is aimed at future-proofing its security solutions against the threats posed by quantum computing. These advanced semiconductors support encryption that can withstand the computational power of quantum computers, ensuring the long-term security of connected devices and critical infrastructure. Combined with its expertise in blockchain and IoT, WISeKey’s post-quantum technologies provide a robust foundation for secure digital ecosystems at the hardware, software, and network levels.
Disclaimer This communication expressly or implicitly contains certain forward-looking statements concerning WISeKey International Holding Ltd and its business. Such statements involve certain known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause the actual results, financial condition, performance or achievements of WISeKey International Holding Ltd to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. WISeKey International Holding Ltd is providing this communication as of this date and does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements contained herein as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
This press release does not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities, and it does not constitute an offering prospectus within the meaning of the Swiss Financial Services Act (“FinSA”), the FinSa’s predecessor legislation or advertising within the meaning of the FinSA. Investors must rely on their own evaluation of WISeKey and its securities, including the merits and risks involved. Nothing contained herein is, or shall be relied on as, a promise or representation as to the future performance of WISeKey.
Press and InvestorContacts
WISeKey International Holding Ltd Company Contact: Carlos Moreira Chairman & CEO Tel: +41 22 594 3000 info@wisekey.com
WISeKey Investor Relations (US) The Equity Group Inc. Lena Cati Tel: +1 212 836-9611 / lcati@equityny.com Katie Murphy Tel: +1 212 836-9612 / kmurphy@equityny.com
San Francisco, Calif. — House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul sent a lettertoPresident Biden urging him to implement mandatory sanctions against U.S. adversaries under McCaul’s bipartisan 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act. Despite the grave and growing threat Russia, China, and Iran pose to U.S. national security interests, the Biden-Harris administration has not issued a single sanctions designationunder the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act since it was signed into law as part of the national security supplemental in April of 2024.
“I call on you to provide additional resources, including detailed staff, to the Departments of Treasury and State for the specific purpose of immediate and robust implementation of the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act to counter Iran, Russia, and China. The world is on fire; we cannot lose another day to hesitation, appeasement, and weakness.”
The full text of the letter can be here and found below:
Dear President Biden,
The United States, our allies, and our partners are facing unprecedented threats from Iran, Russia, and China. Last year, the Biden-Harris administration requested supplemental funding to respond to our adversaries and assist our allies. Congress appropriated the funding and mandated additional policy changes, including sanctions and export controls, that would counter these generational threats.
Nearly six months later, the Biden-Harris administration has failed to implement these requirements while our enemies are on the march. During this delay, Iran launched another major ballistic missile attack on Israel, transferred ballistic missiles to Russia, and supported its terrorist proxies; Iran-backed Hamas murdered hostages, including American Hersh Goldberg-Polin; and China continued to purchase Iranian oil and support Russia’s defense industrial base.
The administration has not issued a single sanctions designation under the bipartisan 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act (Public Law 118-50) enacted alongside the supplemental appropriations law. Even worse, the White House dragged its feet on delegating the authorities to the agencies. When Congress enacted the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act in 2017, President Trump delegated authorities less than two months later. By contrast, it took you almost five months to delegate the authorities in the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, significantly delaying vital actions to weaken our adversaries.
I call on you to provide additional resources, including detailed staff, to the Departments of Treasury and State for the specific purpose of immediate and robust implementation of the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act to counter Iran, Russia, and China. The world is on fire; we cannot lose another day to hesitation, appeasement, and weakness.
Jasper is one of Canada’s most iconic destinations, treasured by Canadians and renowned around the world.
October 18, 2024 – Jasper, Alberta
Jasper is one of Canada’s most iconic destinations, treasured by Canadians and renowned around the world. With its proximity to majestic mountains and clear blue lakes, Jasper draws over two million visitors from across Canada and around the world every year. This summer’s wildfires had a devastating impact on Jasper and the region’s economy, which is built on tourism. That’s why the Government of Canada is taking action to support Jasper’s recovery and help its tourism industry come back strong.
The Honourable Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, alongside Marsha Walden, President and CEO of Destination Canada, the Honourable Joseph Schow, Alberta Minister of Tourism and Sport, Richard Ireland, Mayor of the Municipality of Jasper, David Goldstein, CEO of Travel Alberta, and Tyler Riopel, CEO of Tourism Jasper, today announced $3 million in support from the Government of Canada to help Jasper and the region’s tourism industry recover, rebuild and retake its place on the world stage. This is made possible through collaboration between Destination Canada and Travel Alberta, which are integrating their marketing strategies to showcase one of Canada’s most sought-after experiences.
Key marketing initiatives delivered by Destination Canada include:
investing in Destination Canada-led seasonal marketing campaigns, in collaboration with Travel Alberta, with a focus on the United States—Canada’s top international arrivals market;
co-investing in opportunities for targeted Destination Canada-led marketing programs in additional key markets such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Mexico;
hosting Canada’s largest global tourism media event in Jasper in September 2025, which will be organized in collaboration with Travel Aberta and Tourism Jasper and will serve as a platform to foster relationships between over 80 top-tier travel media outlets from around the world and Canadian tourism industry representatives; and
leveraging Destination Canada’s $50 million International Convention Attraction Fund.
These important investments build on significant support for Jasper already announced by the Government of Canada. This began with calling in the Canadian Armed Forces to fight the wildfires in July. As Jasper began to recover, the government matched donations and ensured local residents received the benefits and services they needed. As the town started rebuilding, the government quickly made changes to put the municipality in charge of the effort. This work is being directed by a special cabinet committee, led by the Honourable Randy Boissonnault.
Today’s announcement followed Minister Ferrada and Minister Schow’s co-hosting of the annual Canadian Council of Tourism Ministers meeting in Banff, Alberta and subsequent tour of the region. At the meeting, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for tourism discussed challenges facing the tourism sector and cross-governmental opportunities to support its growth.
Marie-Justine Torres Press Secretary Office of the Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec marie-justine.torresames@ised-isde.gc.ca 613-327-5918
Media Relations Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada media@ised-isde.gc.ca
For easy access to government programs for businesses, download the Canada Business app.
Copies of the letters from Max Soule, Deputy Director Local Government Stewardship and Interventions at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to Michael Hainge and Richard Paver, detailing the decision by ministers to appoint them as Assistant Inspectors in relation to Warrington Borough Council under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Government marks ‘new beginning’ of relationship with civil society to tackle some of society’s most pressing issues with launch of a new ‘Civil Society Covenant’
Government marks ‘new beginning’ of relationship with civil society to tackle some of society’s most pressing issues
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy host No10 roundtable discussion and reception with key civil society representatives
Event signals start of a period of wider engagement over the Autumn to forge a bold new partnership between Government and civil society
The creation of a ‘Civil Society Covenant’ will usher in a new era of partnership between government and civil society and help tackle some of the country’s biggest challenges, the Prime Minister and Culture Secretary will announce today.
The new Covenant is designed to harness the knowledge and expertise of voluntary, community, social enterprises (VCSEs) and charities to deliver better outcomes for communities right across the country.
Civil society occupies a unique place in public life by providing support to those in need, binding communities together and helping drive growth. Across the country, there are countless examples of what partnership between civil society and government can achieve, including youth activities to support vulnerable teenagers and tools to support people into work.
The new Covenant will build a new partnership between government and civil society based on trust and mutual respect. Crucially, it will unlock the dynamism, innovation and trusted reach of civil society across communities, helping to deliver the defining missions of this government; driving economic growth and opening up opportunity to all.
As a first step, a Covenant Framework has been developed in consultation with key civil society bodies, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO).
The inclusion of key representative organisations recognises the expertise civil society offers in tackling disadvantage, driving cohesion, supporting democracy and community voices both at home and abroad.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy will chair a roundtable discussion with civil society leaders at 10 Downing Street today to launch the Covenant Framework. This will be followed by a reception hosted by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to welcome leaders from a range of civil society organisations. Attendees will represent civil society from across the four nations, including grass roots charities and social enterprises covering a range of diverse communities.
Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer said:
To fix the foundations of our country we need a fundamental reset of the relationship between government and civil society.
That is why we’re building a new partnership with the sector to tackle the complex social and economic challenges we face as a country.
By harnessing the dynamism, innovation and trusted reach of civil society organisations, we can boost growth and deliver better outcomes for communities right across the country”.
Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy said:
The Covenant paves the way for a new era in the relationship between government and civil society — one that recognises the critical role the sector plays as a trusted partner in achieving shared goals for the benefit of communities across the UK.
Voluntary organisations, charities and social enterprises all understand the challenges being faced every day in our villages, towns and cities and the government wants to work hand-in-hand with them to help fix them — changing lives for the better.
National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) CEO, Sarah Elliott said:
We are proud to be working with the Government on the Civil Society Covenant. This foundational moment resets the relationship between government and civil society, ensuring the expertise of charities and social enterprises are central to decision making. We look forward to continuing our work with partners across the sector to achieve this vision.
Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO) CEO, Jane Ide said:
ACEVO welcomes the government’s commitment to work together to develop a Civil Society Covenant which aims to redefine our relationship for the benefit of the people, causes and communities we serve. Effective leadership relies on collaboration, trust, and mutual respect — values that underpin this Covenant. Civil society leaders are essential partners in realising this vision and ensuring its principles are upheld.
Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA) CEO, Dr Lindsay Cordery-Bruce said:
WCVA has proudly worked alongside the Welsh Government for over 20 years to ensure positive and meaningful engagement with the third sector. We welcome the new Covenant as the next step in the civil society movement across the UK. A new Covenant that complements the existing arrangements in the devolved nations will offer an opportunity to build on good practice.”
Locality CEO, Tony Armstrong said:
We welcome the government’s commitment to resetting its relationship with civil society. Local community organisations have long played a vital, yet often overlooked role in addressing society’s most pressing issues. We see every day what community power can achieve, and the support of government at all levels will allow community organisations to do even more to help local people thrive.
Refugee Council CEO, Enver Solomon said:
It is very encouraging to have a government firmly committed to reaching a new deal on how it works with the voluntary sector as it responds to the huge challenges society and public services face.
Charities bring years of invaluable frontline experience, service innovation and an independent perspective that can make government policy and delivery stronger and grounded in the reality of people’s lived experience.
Four key principles will form the basis of the Covenant Framework: transparency, recognition, participation and partnership. They will act as a starting point for wider engagement across Government, the public sector and civil society.
The initiative aims to improve Government and civil society’s ability to tackle complex social and economic challenges by uniting the unique capabilities of the two to facilitate better outcomes for communities which would otherwise be impossible to achieve in isolation.
Today’s events at Downing Street will kickstart a period of engagement throughout the autumn, with consideration given to ensuring broad representation is achieved across the full breadth of civil society, inclusive of organisations of all purposes, sizes, geographical locations and demographic focus.
In parallel, engagement will take place across Government including the Devolved Governments, Arm’s Length Bodies, local authorities and Mayoral Combined Authorities.
The robust engagement period will culminate in the publication of a final co-created Covenant to be published next year.
ENDS
Additional quotes:
National Association for Voluntary and Community Action (NAVCA) CEO, Maddy Desforges said:
We welcome Government’s explicit recognition of the VCSE’s role in tackling complex and deep rooted societal problems. Local VCSE support organisations form critical connections between the VCSE and statutory partners and capture communities’ unique knowledge and problem solving insights. We are excited to work with Government to collaborate and deepen our relationship to support and develop resilient communities.
Voice4Change England Director, Kunle Olulode MBE said:
Voice4change England welcomes the opportunity to work with government on setting out a new relationship with voluntary organisations, social enterprises and civil society generally.
It is long overdue for the government to engage seriously with the parts of the Black and Minoritised third sector we are involved in, so we are keen to make it work. We look forward to constructive, meaningful engagement and positive changes for all in British Society.
The Civil Society Covenant will support partnerships between: 1. national government and associated public bodies including executive agencies and arm’s length organisations 2. civil society organisations including charities, community groups, social enterprises, funders and contributors to the impact economy.
While the Covenant scope will focus on core Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations, relevant industry bodies including Trade Unions were also consulted as part of the initial drafting via engagement with NCVO and ACEVO.
The Covenant will not override existing arrangements between civil society and the Devolved Governments, local authorities and combined authorities, but will instead seek to support these existing relationships.
(COLUMBIA, S.C.) – Attorney General Alan Wilson filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to stop the Biden-Harris administration from imposing an electric-vehicle mandate on truck manufacturers. A coalition of 24 states teamed up in Nebraska v. EPA to challenge the new rule.
“This is yet another overreach by the Biden-Harris administration trying to do something they don’t have the authority to do,” Attorney General Wilson said. “But more importantly, it will raise the price on all of us for almost everything that gets shipped by truck.”
In April, the federal Environmental and Protection Agency (EPA) published a rule imposing stringent tailpipe emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles that effectively force manufacturers to produce more electric trucks and fewer internal combustion trucks. The attorneys general argued that EPA’s electric-truck mandate raises a “major question” that Congress has not clearly authorized EPA to decide. The brief points out that just 0.10 percent of all heavy-duty trucks sold today are powered by a battery, but that EPA’s rule would increase that number to 45 percent in less than a decade. That massive shift in the nation’s trucking and logistics industries will slow down the transportation of essential goods, stress the electric grid, and raise prices for Americans. The brief also argues that EPA has never before forced manufacturers to produce heavy-duty electric vehicles and that allowing the electric-truck mandate to stand would short-circuit the ongoing policy debate that should be left to Congress and the States.
In addition to Attorney General Wilson, attorneys general from the following states joined the brief against the Biden Administration: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Lea Paterson announced as Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
Today, Thursday 17 October 2024, the Government has announced that Lea Paterson will be the new Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB).
Lea brings extensive experience from public policy, regulation, HR and financial journalism. She has held a number of senior roles at the Bank of England, including serving as the Bank’s Executive Director of People & Culture, and as the organisation’s first Director of Independent Evaluation.
Lea is currently a Board Member at the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, an independent member of Warwick University’s Remuneration Committee, and a Civil Service Commissioner. She also holds a number of voluntary and community roles.
As Chair of the SSRB, Lea will provide strong leadership at a senior level and a clear direction of the policy, financial and operational levers that impact on remuneration decisions, especially in the public sector.
The SSRB provides independent advice to the Prime Minister and senior ministers on the pay of many of the nation’s top public servants.
The SSRB’s remit covers senior civil servants, the judiciary, the senior military, certain senior managers in the NHS, Police and Crime Commissioners and chief police officers.
This is a Prime Ministerial appointment with Cabinet Office being the sponsoring department. The appointment process for this role was in full accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.
The Rt Hon Pat McFadden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said:
Congratulations to Lea on her appointment as Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
This role requires someone with financial expertise, strong leadership skills and dedication to public service, and Lea’s skills and experience across many relevant fields will be invaluable.
I wish her the best of luck in her new role.
Lea Paterson, incoming Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body, said:
I’m delighted to have been appointed as Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
I’m looking forward to working with colleagues to deliver independent, evidence-based advice that not only helps to attract and retain great talent for our public services, but also ensures value for money for the taxpayer.
I would also like to thank the outgoing Chair Pippa Lambert for her sterling leadership of the SSRB.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kieran Maguire, Senior Teacher in Accountancy and member of Football Industries Group, University of Liverpool
When the Premier League broke away from the rest of English football in 1992, its 22 clubs generated £205 million in its debut season, and the average player earned £2,050 a week. Thirty years later, despite having two fewer clubs, the league’s revenue had increased by 2,850% to £6.1 billion and the average player earned £93,000 a week.
At the heart of this extraordinary growth is an American revolution. In the Premier League’s inaugural season, football was still in recovery from the horrors of the stadium disasters at Hillsborough and Heysel. Owners tended to be from the local area and with a business background. The only foreign owner was Sam Hamman at Wimbledon, a Lebanese millionaire who bought the club on a whim having reportedly been much more interested in tennis. The season ended with Manchester United (under Alex Ferguson) winning the English game’s top league for the first time in 26 years.
Now, if the Texas-based Friedkin Group’s recent deal to buy Everton goes through, 11 of the 20 Premier League clubs will be controlled or part-owned by American investors. The US – long seen as football’s final frontier when it comes to the men’s game – suddenly can’t get enough of English “soccer”.
Four of the Premier League’s “big six” are American-owned – Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea – while a fifth, Manchester City, has a significant US minority shareholding. Aston Villa, Fulham, Bournemouth, Crystal Palace, West Ham and Ipswich Town also have varying degrees of American ownership.
And it’s not even just the glamour clubs at the top of the tree. American investment has also been significant lower down the football pyramid, led by the high-profile acquisition of then non-league Wrexham by Hollywood actors Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenny, and Birmingham City’s purchase by US investors including seven-time Super Bowl winner Tom Brady. American investment in football has reached places as geographically diverse as Carlisle and Crawley in England, and Aberdeen and Edinburgh in Scotland.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
Manchester United was the first Premier League club to come under American ownership – after a row about a horse.
In 2005, United was owned by a variety of investors including Irish businessmen and racehorse owners John Magnier and J.P. McManus. Their erstwhile friend Ferguson, the United manager, thought he co-owned the champion racehorse Rock of Gibraltar with them – a stallion worth millions in stud rights. They disagreed – and their bitter dispute was such that Magnier and McManus decided to sell their shares in the football club.
The Miami-based Glazer family – already involved in sport as owners of NFL franchise the Tampa Bay Buccaneers – had already been buying up small tranches of shares in United, but the sudden availability of the Irish shares allowed Malcolm Glazer to acquire a controlling stake for £790 million (around £1.5 billion at today’s prices).
The fact Glazer did not actually have sufficient funds to pay for these shares was a solvable problem. In the some-might-say commercially naive world of top-flight English football before the Premier League, Manchester United was a club without debt, paying its way without leveraging its position as one of the world’s most famous football clubs. Glazer saw the opportunity this presented and arranged a leveraged buy-out (LBO), whereby the football club borrowed more than £600 million secured on its own assets to, in effect, “buy itself” in 2005.
Despite the need to meet the high interest costs to fund the LBO, United continued winning trophies under Ferguson – including three Premier League titles in a row in 2007, 2008 and 2009, as well as a Champions League victory in 2008. Amid this success, the club felt that ticket prices were too low and set about increasing them, with matchday revenue increasing from £66 million in 2004/05 to over £101 million by 2007/08.
Commercial income was another area the Glazers were keen to increase. United set up offices in London and adopted a global approach to finding new official branding deals ranging from snacks to tractor and tyre suppliers – doubling revenues from this income source too.
But in this new, more aggressive world of “sweating the asset”, the debts lingered – and most United fans remained deeply suspicious of their American owners. (Following their father’s death in 2014, the club was co-owned by his six children, with brothers Avram and Joel Glazer becoming co-chairmen.)
Today, despite its partial listing on the New York Stock Exchange and the February 2024 sale of 27.7% of the club to British billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe for a reputed £1.25 billion, United still has borrowings of more than £546 million, having paid cumulative interest costs of £969 million since the takeover in 2005. But with the club now valued at US$6.55 billion (around £5bn), it represents a very smart investment for the Glazer family.
Indeed, while the prices being paid for football clubs across Europe have reached record levels, they are still seen as cheap investments compared with US sports’ leading franchises. Forbes’s annual list of the world’s most valuable sports teams has American football (NFL), baseball (MLB) and basketball (NBA) teams occupying the top ten positions, with only three Premier League clubs – Manchester United, Liverpool and Manchester City – in the top 50.
With NFL teams having an average franchise value of US$5.1 billion and NBA $3.9 billion, many English football clubs still look like a bargain from the other side of the pond.
The risk of relegation
The latest to join this US bandwagon, the Friedkin Group – a Texas-based portfolio of companies run by American businessman and film producer Dan Friedkin – is reported to have offered £400m to buy Everton, despite the club’s poor financial state.
“The Toffees” have been hit by loss of sponsorships as well as two sets of points deductions for breaching the Premier League’s financial rules, leading to revenue losses from lower league positions. While the new stadium being built at Liverpool’s Bramley-Moore dock has been yet another financial constraint, it will at least increase matchday income from the start of next season.
Everton’s new stadium at Bramley-Moore dock will open in time for the start of the 2025-26 season. Phil Silverman / Shutterstock
A wider reason for the relative bargain in valuations of European football clubs is the risk of relegation – something that is not part of the closed leagues of most US sports. While the threat of relegation (and promise of promotion) has always been an integral part of English and European football, the jeopardy this brings for supporters – and a club’s finances – does not exist in the NFL, NBA, Major League Soccer and similar competitions.
The Premier League, with its three relegation spots at the end of each season, has featured 51 different clubs since it launched in 1992. Only six clubs – Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool and Everton – have been ever present, with Arsenal now approaching 100 years of consecutive top-flight football.
Other Premier League clubs have experienced the dramatic cost-benefit of relegation and promotion. Oldham Athletic, who were in the Premier League for its first two seasons, now languish in the fifth tier of the game, outside the English Football League (EFL). In contrast, Luton Town, who were in the fifth tier as recently as 2014, were promoted to the Premier League in 2023 – only to be relegated at the end of last season.
While it is difficult to compare football clubs with basketball and American football teams, the financial difference between having an open league, with relegation, and a closed league becomes apparent when you look at women’s football on both sides of the Atlantic.
Angel City, a women’s soccer team based in Los Angeles, only entered the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) in 2022 and is yet to win an NWSL trophy. But last month, the club was sold for US$250 million (£188m) to Disney’s CEO Bob Iger and TV journalist Willow Bay – the most expensive takeover in the history of women’s professional sport.
In comparison, Chelsea – seven-time winners of the English Women’s Super League and one of the most successful sides in Europe – valued its women’s team at £150 million ($US196m) earlier this summer. While there are a number of factors to this price differential, the confidence that Angel City will always be a member of the big league of US soccer clubs – and share very equally in its revenue – will have made its new owners very confident in the long-term soundness of their deal.
The story of Angel City FC, the most expensive team in women’s sport.
A further attraction for American investors is the potential to enter two markets – one mature (men’s football) and one effectively a start-up (the women’s game) – in a single purchase. In the US, the top men’s and women’s clubs are completely separate. But in Europe, most top-flight women’s teams are affiliated to men’s clubs – with the exception of eight-time Women’s Champions League winners Olympique Lyonnais Feminin, which split from the French men’s club when Korean-American businesswoman Michele Kang bought a majority stake in the women’s team in February 2024).
While interest in, and hence value of, the WSL is now growing fast, the women’s game in England is dwarfed by viewer ratings for the Premier League – the most watched sporting league in the world, viewed by an estimated 1.87 billion people every week across 189 countries.
These figures dwarf even the NFL which, while currently still the most valuable of all sporting leagues in terms of its broadcasting deals, must be looking at the growth of the Premier League with some jealousy. This may explain why some US franchise owners, such as Stan Kroenke, the Glazer family, Fenway Sports Group and Billy Foley, have subsequently purchased Premier League football clubs.
Ironically, for many spectators around the world, it is the intensity and competitiveness of most Premier League matches – brought on in part by the threat of relegation and prize of European qualification – that makes it so captivating. However, billionaire investors like guaranteed numbers and dislike risk – especially the degree of financial risk that exists in the Premier League and English Football League.
European not-so-Super League
In April 2021, 12 leading European clubs (six from England plus three each from Spain and Italy) announced the creation of the European Super League (ESL). This new mid-week competition was to be a high-revenue generating, closed competition with (eventually) 15 permanent teams and five annual additions qualifying from Europe. According to one of the driving forces behind the plan, Manchester United co-chairman Joel Glazer:
By bringing together the world’s greatest clubs and players to play each other throughout the season, the Super League will open a new chapter for European football, ensuring world-class competition and facilities, and increased financial support for the wider football pyramid.
The problem facing the Premier League’s “big six” clubs – and their ambitious owners – is there are currently only four slots available to play in the Champions League. So, their thinking went, why not take away the risk of not qualifying? However, the proposal was swiftly condemned by fans around Europe, together with football’s governing bodies and leagues – all of whom saw the ESL proposal as a threat to the quality and integrity of their domestic leagues. Following some large fan protests, including at Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge, Manchester City was the first club to withdraw – followed, within a couple of days, by the rest of the English clubs.
Under the terms of the ESL proposals, founding member clubs would have been guaranteed participation in the competition forever. Guaranteed participation means guaranteed revenues. The current financial gap between the “big six” and the other members of the Premier League, which in 2022/23 averaged £396 million, would have widened rapidly.
For example, these clubs would have been able to sell the broadcast rights for some of their ESL home fixtures direct to fans, instead of via a broadcaster. All of a sudden, that database of fans who have downloaded the official club app, or are on a mailing list, becomes far more valuable. These are the people most willing to watch their favourite team on a pay-per-view basis, further increasing revenues.
At the same time, a planned ESL wage cap would have stopped players taking all these increased revenues in the form of higher wages, allowing these clubs to become more profitable and their ownership even more lucrative.
American-owned Manchester United and Liverpool had previously tried to enhance the value of their investments during the COVID lockdowns era via ProjectBig Picture – proposals to reduce the size of the Premier League and scrap one of the two domestic cup competitions, thus freeing up time for the bigger clubs to arrange more lucrative tours and European matches against high-profile opposition.
Most importantly, Project Big Picture would have resulted in changing the governance of the domestic game. Under its proposals, the “big six” clubs would have enjoyed enhanced voting rights, and therefore been able to significantly influence how the domestic game was governed.
Any attempt to increase the concentration of power raises concerns of lower competitive balance, whereby fewer teams are in the running to win the title and fewer games are meaningful. This is a problem facing some other major European football leagues including France’s Ligue 1, where interest among broadcasters has dwindled amid the perceived dominance of Paris St-Germain.
So while to date, American-led attempts to change the structure of the Premier League have been foiled, it’s unlikely such ideas have gone away for good. The near-universal fear of fans – even those who welcome an injection of extra cash from a new billionaire owner – is that the spectacle of the league will only be diminished if such plans ever succeed.
And there is evidence from the women’s game that the US closed league format is coming under more pressure from football’s global forces. The NWSL recently announced it is removing the draft system that is designed (as with the NFL and NBA) to build in jeopardy and competitive balance when there is no risk of relegation.
Top US women’s football clubs are losing some of their leading players to other leagues, in part because European clubs are not bound by the same artificial rules of employment. In a truly global professional sport such as football, international competition will always tend to destabilise closed leagues.
Why do they keep buying these clubs?
Does this mean that American and other wealthy owners of Premier League clubs seeking to reduce their risks are ultimately fighting a losing battle? And if so, given the potential risks involved in owning a football club – both financial and even personal – why do they keep buying them?
The motivations are part-financial, part technological and, as has always been the case with sports ownership, part-vanity.
The American economy has grown far faster than that of the EU or UK in recent years. Consequently, there are many beneficiaries of this growth who have surplus cash, and here football becomes an attractive proposition. In fact, football clubs are more resilient to recessions than other industries, holding their value better as they are effectively monopoly suppliers for their fans who have brand loyalty that exists in few other industries.
From 1993 to 2018, a period during which the UK economy more than doubled, the total value of Premier League clubs grew 30 times larger. And many fans are tied to supporting one club, helping to make the biggest clubs more resilient to economic changes than other industries. While football, like many parts of the entertainment industry, was hit by lockdown during Covid, no clubs went out of business, despite the challenges of matches being played in empty stadiums.
Added to this, the exchange rates for US dollars have been very favourable until recently, making US investments in the UK and Europe cheaper for American investors.
So, while Manchester United fans would argue that the Glazer family have not been good for the club, United has been good for the Glazers. And Fenway Sports Group (FSG), who bought Liverpool for £300 million in 2010, have recouped almost all of that money in smaller share sales while remaining majority owners of Liverpool.
Despite this, the £2.5 billion price paid for Chelsea by the US Clearlake-Todd Boehly consortium in May 2022 took markets by surprise.
The sale – which came after the UK government froze the assets of the club’s Russian oligarch owner, Roman Abramovich, following the invasion of Ukraine – went through less than a year after Newcastle United had been sold by Sports Direct founder Mike Ashley to the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund for £305 million – approximately twice that club’s annual revenues. Yet Clearlake-Boehly were willing to pay over five times Chelsea’s annual revenues to acquire the club, even though it was in a precarious financial position.
Clearlake is a private equity group whose main aim is to make profits for their investors. But unlike most such investors, who tend to focus on cost-cutting, the Chelsea ownership came in with a high-spending strategy using new financial structuring ideas, such as offering longer player contracts to avoid falling foul of football’s profitability and sustainability rules (although this loophole has since been closed with Uefa, European football’s governing body, limiting contract lengths for financial regulation purposes to five years).
Chelsea’s location in the one of the most expensive areas of London, combined with its on-field success under Abramovich, all added to the attraction, of course. But there are other reasons why Clearlake, along with billionaire businessman Boehly, were willing to stump up so much for the club.
From Hollywood to the metaverse
While some British football fans may have viewed the Ted Lasso TV show as an enjoyable if slightly twee fictional account of American involvement in English soccer, it has enhanced the attraction of the sport in the US. So too Welcome To Wrexham – the fly-on-the-wall series covering the (to date) two promotions of Wales’s oldest football club under the unlikely Hollywood stewardship of Reynolds and McElhenney.
Welcome To Wrexham, season one trailer.
The growth in US interest in English football is reflected in the record-breaking Premier League media rights deal in 2022, with NBC Sports reportedly paying $2.7 billion (£2.06bn) for its latest six-year deal.
But as well as football offering one of increasingly few “live shared TV experiences” that carry lucrative advertising slots, there may also be more opportunity for more behind-the-scenes coverage of the Premier League – as has long been seen in US coverage of NBA games, for example, where players are interviewed in the locker room straight after games.
According to Manchester United’s latest annual report, the club now has a “global community of 1.1 billion fans and followers”. Such numbers mean its owners, and many others, are bullish about the potential of the metaverse in terms of offering a matchday experience that could be similar to attending a match, without physically travelling to Manchester.
Their neighbours Manchester City, part-owned by American private equity company Silverlake, broke new (virtual) ground by signing a metaverse deal with Sony in 2022. Virtual reality could give fans around the world the feeling of attending a live match, sitting next to their friends and singing along with the rest of the crowd (for a pay-per-view fee).
Some investors are even confident that advancements in Abba-style avatar technology could one day allow fans to watch live 3D simulations of Premier League matches in stadiums all over the world. Having first-mover advantage by being in the elite club of owners who can make use of such technology could prove ever more rewarding.
More immediately, there are some indications that competitive matches involving England’s top men’s football teams could soon take place in US or other venues. Boehly, Chelsea’s co-owner, has already suggested adopting some US sports staples such as an All-Star match to further boost revenues. Indeed, back in 2008, the Premier League tentatively discussed a “39th game” taking place overseas, but that idea was quickly shelved.
The American owners of Birmingham City were keen to play this season’s EFL League One match against Wrexham in the US, but again this proposal did not get far. Liverpool’s chairman Tom Werner says he is determined to see matches take place overseas, and recent changes to world governing body Fifa’s rulebook could make it easier for this proposal to succeed.
The potential benefits of hosting games overseas include higher matchday revenues, increased brand awareness, and enhanced broadcast rights. While there is likely to be significant opposition from local fans, at least American owners know they would not face the same hostility about rising matchday prices in the US as they have encountered in England.
When the Argentinian legend Lionel Messi signed for new MLS franchise Inter Miami in 2023, season ticket prices nearly doubled on his account. And while there is vocal opposition to higher ticket prices in England, this is not borne out in terms of lower attendances for matches against high-calibre opposition – as evidenced by Aston Villa charging up to £97 for last week’s Champions League meeting with Bayern Munich.
Villa’s director of operations, Chris Heck, defended the prices by saying that difficult decisions had to be made if the club was to be competitive.
Manchester United’s matchday revenue per EPL season (£m)
For much of the 2010s, with broadcast revenues increasing rapidly, many Premier League owners made little effort to stoke hostilities with their loyal fan bases by putting up ticket prices. Indeed, Manchester United generated little more from matchday income in the 2021-22 season, as football emerged from the pandemic, than the club had in 2010-11 (see chart above).
However, this uneasy truce between fans and owners has ceased. The relative flatlining of broadcast revenues since 2017, along with cost control rules that are starting to affect clubs’ ability to spend money on player signings and wages, has changed club appetites for dampened ticket prices. This has resulted in noticeable rises in individual ticket and season ticket prices by some clubs.
However, season ticket and other local “legacy” fans generate little money compared with the more lucrative overseas and tourist fans. They may only watch their favourite team live once a season, but when they visit, they are far more likely not only to pay higher matchday prices, but to spend more on merchandise, catering and other offerings from the club.
Today’s breed of commercially aware, profit-seeking US Premier League owners – pioneered by the Glazer family, who saw that “sweating the asset” meant more than watching football players sprinting hard – understand there is a lot more value to come from English football teams. The clubs’ loyal local supporters may not like it, but English football’s American-led revolution is not done yet.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Kieran Maguire has taught courses and presented on football finance for the Professional Footballers Association, League Managers Association, FIFA and national football associations in Europe.
Christina Philippou is affiliated with the RAF FA, and Premier League education programs.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 3
New rules will give millions of Buy-Now, Pay-Later users key protections offered by other forms of credit.
Providers will have to ensure lending is affordable – stopping users from accumulating unmanageable debt
Rules deliver better protection for shoppers and clarity for innovative sector after years of uncertainty
Millions of shoppers are set to be protected by new rules for Buy-Now, Pay-Later products.
Buy-Now, Pay-Later products have become increasingly popular in recent years as they allow people to spread the cost of purchases over time, but users currently do not have access to a range of key protections provided by other consumer credit products.
The Government has today launched a consultation on proposals to fix this by bringing Buy-Now, Pay-Later companies under the supervision of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and applying the Consumer Credit Act, ensuring users receive clear information, avoid unaffordable borrowing, and have strong rights when issues arise.
Economic Secretary to the Treasury Tulip Siddiq said:
Millions of people use Buy-Now, Pay-Later to manage their finances, but the previous government’s dither and delay left them unprotected.
We promised to take action before the election and now we are delivering. Our approach will give shoppers access to the key protections provided by other forms of credit while providing the sector with the certainty it needs to innovate and grow.
The new rules will allow the FCA to apply rules on affordability – meaning that Buy-Now, Pay-Later companies will have to check that shoppers are able to afford repayments before offering a loan, which will help to prevent people building up unmanageable debt.
Companies will also need to provide clear, simple and accessible information about loan agreements in advance so that shoppers can make fully informed decisions and understand the risks associated with late repayments. Consumer Credit Act information disclosure rules will be disapplied so that the FCA can consult on bespoke rules that ensure users are given this information in a way that is tailored to the online setting in which Buy-Now, Pay-Later products are generally used.
Buy-Now, Pay-Later users will be given stronger rights if issues arise with products they purchase, making it quicker and easier to get redress. This includes applying Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, which allows consumers to claim refunds from their lender, and access to the Financial Ombudsman Service to make complaints.
Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said:
Which? has been a leading voice calling for the regulation of Buy Now Pay Later for years so it’s positive that new rules are coming in that should provide much-needed protections for users of these products.
Our research found that many BNPL customers do not realise they are taking on debt or consider the prospect of missing payments, which can result in uncapped fees, so clearer information about the risks involved as well as the use of affordability checks and options for redress would be a win for consumers.
We are keen to see legislation quickly passed to ensure that BNPL users are protected as strongly as consumers using other credit products.
Sebastian Siemiatkowski, Co founder and CEO of Klarna, said:
Congratulations to Tulip Siddiq and the government on moving quickly! They have been working with the industry and consumer groups long before coming into office. We’re looking forward to carrying on that work to put proportionate rules in place that protect consumers while fostering growth.
Michael Saadat, International Head of Public Policy at Clearpay said:
We welcome today’s update from City and FinTech Minister, Tulip Siddiq, on BNPL regulation. It is encouraging that HM Treasury has listened to industry feedback and evolved the previous framework to ensure a more proportionate approach to regulation. We have always called for fit-for-purpose regulation that prioritises customer protection, delivers much-needed innovation in consumer credit and that sets high industry standards across the board.
We will continue to support the Government and the FCA to deliver fit-for-purpose regulation that ensures consumers are protected in a way that supports the UK’s thriving FinTech sector.
Chris Woolard, Author of the 2021 Woolard Review, which looked at change and innovation in the unsecured credit market, said:
Today marks a significant milestone for consumer-focused financial regulation. The proposed package of regulation would implement the recommendations of the Review and mean millions of people up and down the UK will benefit from stronger financial protection as they borrow using BNPL, especially the most vulnerable in society. The incoming regulation will also provide long-term certainty and standards for the market.
The consultation will be conducted quickly – closing on 29 November – to reflect the urgent need for action to protect consumers.
Final legislation is expected to be laid in Parliament in early 2025. Once the legislation is laid, the FCA will finalise the rules so they can take effect in 2026 – bringing clarity to the sector after years of uncertainty about how it will be regulated.
This follows the Prime Minister saying he would remove regulation that needlessly holds back investment and growth. Today’s announcement brings in much needed regulation that stops people spiralling into debt.
Justin Basini, Co-Founder and CEO of The ClearScore Group said:
We welcome this consultation to bring Buy-Now, Pay-Later borrowers under the same protections and creditworthiness assessments as other mainstream financial products such as credit cards and loans.
It is a sensible step in ensuring that this new, important form of credit continues to provide much-needed flexibility for consumers while also managing any risks.
ATLANTA – U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan announced today that an Assistant U.S. Attorney will serve as the District Election Officer (DEO) and lead the efforts of his Office in connection with the Department of Justice’s nationwide Election Day Program for the upcoming November 5, 2024, general election. The DEO is responsible for overseeing the District’s handling of election day complaints of voting rights concerns, threats of violence to election officials or staff, and election fraud, in consultation with the Department of Justice’s Headquarters in Washington.
“Every eligible citizen must be free to vote without interference or discrimination and have that vote counted as part of a fair and free election,” said U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan. “Critical to the preservation of this sacred right is our duty to ensure that election officials and staff, many of whom are elder members of our communities, be permitted to serve without being subject to unlawful threats of violence. The Department of Justice will always work tirelessly to protect the integrity of the election process.”
The Department of Justice performs an important role in deterring and combatting discrimination and intimidation at the polls, threats of violence directed at election officials and poll workers, and election fraud. The Department will address these violations wherever they occur. The Department’s longstanding Election Day Program furthers these goals and also seeks to ensure public confidence in the electoral process by providing local points of contact within the Department for the public to report possible federal election law violations.
Federal law protects against such crimes as threatening violence against election officials or staff, intimidating or bribing voters, buying and selling votes, impersonating voters, altering vote tallies, stuffing ballot boxes, and marking ballots for voters against their wishes or without their input. It also contains special protections for the rights of voters, and provides that they can vote free from interference, including intimidation, and other acts designed to prevent or discourage people from voting or voting for the candidate of their choice. The Voting Rights Act protects the right of voters to mark their own ballot or to be assisted by a person of their choice (where voters need assistance because of disability or inability to read or write in English).
U.S. Attorney Buchanan added, “The franchise is the cornerstone of American democracy. We must all endeavor to guarantee that those who are entitled to the franchise can exercise this right if they choose, and that those who seek to corrupt or interfere with this right are brought to justice.”
To respond to complaints of voting rights concerns and election fraud during the upcoming election, and to ensure that such complaints are directed to the appropriate authorities, the District’s AUSA/DEO will be on duty in this District while the polls are open. The DEO can be reached by the public at (404) 581-6001.
In addition, the FBI will assign special agents to be available in each field office and resident agency throughout the country to receive allegations of election fraud and other election abuses on election day. The local FBI field office can be reached by the public at 770-216-3000.
Complaints about possible violations of the federal voting rights laws can also be made directly to the Civil Rights Division in Washington, DC via a complaint form at https://civilrights.justice.gov/ or by phone at 800-253-3931.
“Ensuring free and fair elections depends in large part on the assistance of the American electorate,” said U.S. Attorney Buchanan. “It is important that anyone aware of specific information about voting rights concerns or election fraud makes that information available to the Department of Justice.”
But please note that in the case of a crime of violence or intimidation, you should call 911 immediately and before contacting federal authorities. State and local police have primary jurisdiction over polling places, and almost always have faster reaction capacity in an emergency.
For further information please contact the U.S. Attorney’s Public Affairs Office at USAGAN.PressEmails@usdoj.gov or (404) 581-6016. The Internet address for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia is http://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga.
MILES AXLE Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
Source: Government of the Russian Federation – An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
International Forum “Client-Centricity in Public Administration 2024”
October 17, 2024
International Forum “Client-Centricity in Public Administration 2024”
October 17, 2024
Forum “Client-centricity in public administration – 2024”
October 17, 2024
Previous news Next news
International Forum “Client-Centricity in Public Administration 2024”
Approaches and tools for implementing the federal project “State for People” were discussed at the international forum “Client-centricity in public administration – 2024”. The event included discussions on the introduction of client-centricity principles in public administration. The federal project “State for People” is supervised by Deputy Prime Minister – Chief of Staff of the Government of Russia Dmitry Grigorenko.
“Identifying human needs, constantly improving the interaction between government bodies and citizens are important components of the entire public administration system. And here, not only the quality and convenience of government services and services that people use, but also the friendly, open approach of each employee of the departments that citizens contact, play a significant role,” commented Dmitry Grigorenko.
The forum participants discussed the importance of preparing department employees to work with citizens, their training, developing professional and personal qualities, as well as working with people’s opinions about the quality of public services.
In particular, it was noted that the federal project “State for People” involves testing government services for simplicity and accessibility. It is carried out in a network of user testing laboratories in 9 regions of Russia. In them, government services and services are tested for compliance with customer-centricity standards, and their ease of use is assessed.
Another important part of the federal project is the “life situations” services, which help people receive the full range of services necessary to solve a specific problem.
On the portals of public services and “MSP.RF” 15 “life situations” of the federal level have been launched, and by the end of 2024 it is planned to implement 34. On average, one “life situation” combines 16 services. To date, more than 1.4 million people have used the “life situations” services on the portal of public services. Also this year, 85 regions have begun to implement more than 400 “life situations”.
Experts from Brazil, South Africa, Qatar, the UAE, and Serbia took part in the panel session “International Experience of Client-Centric Transformation of Public Administration”. The experts shared their experience of implementing client-centric principles in the work of government bodies and emphasized the importance of providing public services not only in person, but also electronically.
The forum “Customer-centricity in public administration – 2024” brought together about 1.5 thousand representatives of federal and regional authorities, governors, and heads of municipalities of Russia.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please note; This information is raw content directly from the information source. It is accurate to what the source is stating and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
