Tagged with: Awards competition 192 total views, 2 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis4 The winners of the first Koreo Prize have been announced, with the winning submission a project on honour killings.The Koreo Prize launched last year and asked young people under the age of 27 to choose one of six social issues aligned with the UN’s Global Goals and to bring it to life through a story or series of stories in any media. The competition aimed to generate fresh perspectives on the issues of gender equality, social mobility, community resilience, food security, and social housing & wellbeing.More than 100 teams from across the UK entered with six finalists awarded for their contributions. Finalist projects included a critical review of the UK’s approach to honour based crime, an exploration of social mobility through intergenerational interviews in London’s Afro-Caribbean communities and a project outlining the consequences of ignoring the UK’s social housing crisis.The winner, 19-year-old law student Felicity Abraham (a pseudonym) from London, received £5,000 for her project on honour killings. The five runners-up were awarded mentoring and speaking opportunities at global conferences.Participants were judged on their ability to tell a compelling story that provided real insight and considered a social issue from different perspectives. There were no restrictions on the media each project could use and final submissions included documentaries, social media campaigns, photography, poetry and plays.The prize was judged by experts in cross-sector social change, with the awards designed to encourage participants to continue to focus on their project long term. Judges included Caroline Mason, CEO of the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, John Upton, Managing Director of Leon, Judith Grant, Associate Director of Health and Wellbeing at Mace Group, and Indy Johar, co-founder of Architecture00 and Dark Matter Labs.John Upton, Managing Director of Leon, said:“I was both privileged and humbled to be a judge for the Koreo Prize. The creativity, granularity and passion with which all of the finalists took on their challenge was amazing. Their output, both individually and collectively, made me realise just how positive we should be about the future, and how our next generation of young people can and will make a real difference to society.”Judith Grant, Associate Director of Health and Wellbeing at Mace Group, said: Advertisement AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis4 Melanie May | 9 February 2018 | News “The prize was an outstanding opportunity for young people to showcase their exceptional understanding of, and solutions to, the UK’s most pressing issues.“At only 19, Felicity Abraham has shown us where the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals can be developed further and how the UK can address this when outlining the national strategy to implement the goals by 2030.”The Koreo Prize is running again this year and is now open for entries with a focus on the UN Sustainable Development Goals at work for people of all ages. 191 total views, 1 views today Koreo Prize winners announced with competition back for 2018 About Melanie May Melanie May is a journalist and copywriter specialising in writing both for and about the charity and marketing services sectors since 2001. She can be reached via www.thepurplepim.com.
Top Stories’Affirmative Action Not Limited To Reservation Only’: Supreme Court In Maratha Quota Case Hearing[Day 6] Radhika Roy22 March 2021 7:40 AMShare This – xOn the sixth consecutive day of the hearing in the Maratha quota case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court made observations regarding the need to move beyond reservations for the purposes of affirmative action.”Affirmative action is not limited to reservation only”, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, part of the 5-member bench, observed while hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal,…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginOn the sixth consecutive day of the hearing in the Maratha quota case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court made observations regarding the need to move beyond reservations for the purposes of affirmative action.”Affirmative action is not limited to reservation only”, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, part of the 5-member bench, observed while hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who is supporting the Maharashtra State Reservation For Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act which provides for a quota to Marathas in jobs and education.”Other things can also be done. Why not promote education and establish more institutes? Somewhere this matrix has to move beyond reservation. Something more must be done”, Justice Bhat continued.Justice Ashok Bhushan, the presiding judge of the bench, made comments regarding the need to balance the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and reservation.On the previous day of hearing, the bench had asked for how many generations would reservations in jobs and education continue. The bench had also sought to know if the removal of 50% limit on reservation will affect the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and would lead to a “resultant inequality”.”If there is no 50% limit, what is the concept of Article 14 then? What would happen to the resultant inequality and for how many generations will this continue?”, the bench had asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was pleading for a reconsideration of the 50% cap imposed by the Inidra Sawhney judgment.The detailed account of the Day 6 of hearing before the the bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat is given below.The bench heard the submissions of Senior Advocates Paramjit Patwalia, Shekhar Naphade and Kapil Sibal, who were arguing in support of Maratha quota.1. Sr. Adv. Paramjit Patwalia In today’s hearing, Patwalia resumed his submissions on the efficacy of the Gaikwad Commission report and informed the Court that multiple public hearings had been conducted to gauge the reaction of people to the proposal for reservations for Marathas. “For Mumbai, public hearings were first held at CBT, Belapur and Thane on July 13. A huge number of representations were also sent which stated that submissions had not been made and in order to accommodate the remaining number of representations, an extra hearing took place at an office in Mumbai for which intimation was given. There was no compliant about anyone being prevented to testify”, submitted Patwalia. To this, Justice Rao posed the question as to why there had been no opposition if publicity had been given – “It could have been that people may have not known if Maratha reservations were an addition to or a part of the 27% reservations. 90% respondents were Marathas.” Justice Bhat also added that the terms of reference never stated that it would be a separate quota and that the people in the General quota would have the presumption that a 50% limit would be there. Patwalia then argued that the Gaikwad Commission was not packed with Marathas and that the earlier reports had been adequately considered. The Bombay High Court had also taken cognizance of the same. In response to questions about the Kalelkar Commission, Patwalia responded, “The State set up a new Commission which did not find them [Marathas] as SEBCs. Centre did not accept the Kalelkar report. This is why there were protests. The Deshmukh Committee, which said that Kunbis appeared in the OBC category, noted that Marathas and Kunbis were two sides of the same coin. That is how Marathas started feeling resentment as they felt they were being left out”.Patwalia also underlined the fact that the huge population of Marathas and the small quota available created an “extraordinary circumstance” which validated the breaching of the 50% limit, and that this was the only harmonious solution available as sharing the well-established reservation limit would be catastrophic. “The reservation would have been a complete illusion. And this was done to make it real, and not illusory”, submitted Patwalia. This was opposed by the Bench who noted that merely because a community was in a far-flung area, it would not entitle them to reservation as per Indra Sawhney, and other conditions, such as remoteness leading them to being out of mainstream life and peculiar nature of being, would also need to be satisfied. Patwalia then concluded his arguments by stating, “Court should keep in mind that in cases like these, it is the subjective satisfaction of the State which the Court is putting to scrutiny. A community should be given an opportunity to uplift itself. Studies should be done from time to time to ascertain backwardness”. 2. Sr. Adv. Shekhar Naphade Naphade commenced his submissions by stating that the Gowda Committee and the State had not applied appropriate parameters for deciding the interests of the Maratha community, and that the Court could not sit in judicial scrutiny over the subjective satisfaction of the government in such issues. “There is no justification as to how they [the Court] ended up at 50% limit. Further, finding of the Court that reservation was not required was not necessary to finally decide the case. This takes us to the question on how to identify the ratio from the obiter”, submitted Naphade. He then contended that reasonableness regarding limit on reservations could not be decided based on abstracts as had been done in the MR Balaji decision. Reliance was further placed on the judgement of Justice Sawant in the Indra Sawhney judgment in order to put forth the observation that there could be no ceiling on reservations. Naphade concluded by submitting that in light of the diversity of views of different Judges on the 9-Judge Bench, there was a requirement to refer the matter to a larger Bench. 3. Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal Sibal initiated his submissions by stating that the matter was of great importance because what the Court would decide would end up securing the future of millions of people who belong to the backward classes. “This is the first time a Court is looking at these issues after Indra Sawhney. Also, you cannot look at Articles 15(4) and 16(4) in abstract. Because reservation is not an abstract concept. We also need to look into who can fix limits. Percentages per se are not within the scope of judicial review”, stated Sibal. Sibal then contended that the Indra Sawhney judgment did not consider the Mandal Commission report and that a limit could not be set on empowerment. He noted that the report had been critiqued by the majority and all it did was fix a limit for SEBCs at 50%. “I will delineate the parameters of Article 15 and 16. While 15 is about empowerment, 16 is about employment. While 15 deals with the ability to become eligible for jobs, Art. 16 deals with getting jobs once you’re eligible. Breach of 50% is not relevant for Article 15. How can a Court fix 50% for empowerment?” It was underlined by Sibal how fixing percentages was not a part of judicial function. He submitted that India was not a uniform country, but it was very diverse with every State containing multitudes of diversity in itself. “There’s no one size fits all answer here. Concept of equality will differ from one State to another. Backward classes in one State will be different from another State. You cannot straitjacket it. You can’t take into account the All-India figure”. At this juncture, Justice Bhat asked Sibal whether the 2011 census portrayed the OBC population separately to which Sibal responded that the 2011 census was not out. To this, Justice Bhat observed, “This is extrapolation then. Census does not carry caste-based census. It has been prohibited since 1931. From where have you figured out the data of persons belonging to the OBC category. Kindly submit the handbook, we will look into it.” Sibal then provided data pertaining to the Gross Enrolment Ratio (88% for USA and 28% for India) and submitted that there was a difference between developed and developing countries. “For a developed country, we need enough students to start going to schools and colleges. Why do we have Kendriya Vidyalaya schools? It is 100% for government servants. Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya is for girls only. There is nothing wrong with that. If the government provides 60-70% reservation, the Court can strike it down. But, it cannot say that it must be fixed at 50%”. Justice Bhat then observed that affirmative action could not be limited to reservations – “Other things can also be done. Why not promote education and establish more institutes? Somewhere this matrix has to move beyond reservation. Something more must be done”. Sibal agreed that the same had to be done by the States and then submitted that the need for education to be promoted was so that opportunities were not squandered due to lack of eligibility. He presented data on the number of SC/ST/OBC vacancies in employment. It was further averred that the Indra Sawhney judgment categorically dealt with the Office Memorandum and not the Mandal Commission report. “The Court was only dealing with the OM. What the OM did was give effect to respective State lists. The Court ruled that the lists would be valid and enforceable. Indra Sawhney said that a balance had to be struck. The 50% was meant to be a judicial exercise to balance power; to put a quietus on a tumultuous situation. No judgement before Indra Sawhney ever said that above 50% was bad. What was buried in the Mandal report by a 9-Judge Bench, was resuscitated by others”. He submitted that the Indra Sawhney judgement replaced the term caste for class in Article 16(4) and this could not be taken as a gospel truth for the fixing of an upper limit for reservation. The matter will continue tomorrow, with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal resuming his submissions. BACKGROUND The pleas before the Constitution Bench challenges the Bombay High Court judgment passed in June 2019, and submits that the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which provides for 12% and 13% quota to the Maratha community in education and jobs respectively, violated the principles laid in the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) as per which the Apex Court capped the reservation limit at 50%.The Bombay High Court, while upholding the Maratha quota, held that 16% reservation is not justifiable and ruled that reservation should not exceed 12% in employment and 13% in education as recommended by the State Backward Commission.On September 9, 2020, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the cases to a larger Bench to determine the issue whether State Government has the power to declare a class as Socially and Economically Backward after the Constitution (102nd) amendment.Reports of previous hearingsMaratha Quota Case : Indira Sawhney Decision Delivered After Much Discussion; No Need To Revisit, Datar Argues In Supreme Court’No Extraordinary Circumstance To Exceed 50% Limit’ : SC Constitution Bench Hears Lawyers Opposing Maratha Quota On Day 3Maratha Quota Case, Day 4 : Rights Of States On Backward Classes Not Affected By 102nd Constitution Amendment, AG Tells Supreme Court For How Many Generations Reservations Will Continue? Supreme Court Asks In Maratha Quota Case[Day 5] Next Story
Related posts:No related photos. As an ex-member of RCN staff I feel I must reply to the criticism of the RCN(Letters, Occupational Health, August 2002) with regard to harassment andbullying. While working for the RCN I suffered from bullying by my line manager for afew years until it came to light and was effectively dealt with under theorganisation’s policy. What we have to remember is that the RCN employs some 800 people throughoutthe UK from many different disciplines and professions and, as with allorganisations, there are good and bad people working in it. Many of the RCN’s employees are not nurses and are therefore not bound byany professional code of practice, so although the professional employees maymaintain confidentiality, others may not. Moreover, the RCN is a membershiporganisation and it is that membership that elects its own council and employsthe RCN staff. Has the author of the letter made their comments known to the relevantcouncil member, as well as writing to a professional journal or is it up toother members to do this? Unions are only as good and effective as their membership and it is themembership that directs any action. If the membership cannot get the actionright it is no wonder there are problems in the NHS. Name and address supplied In defence of the RCNOn 1 Oct 2002 in Personnel Today Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Article
JJ Hanrahan – the scorer of Munster’s match-winning try in Perpignan last Saturday – turned provider for the province’s latest comeback win, with his crossfield kick sending O’Mahony over in the right corner. The young out-half added the conversion for good measure as the Scarlets’ brave bid to end the RaboDirect PRO12 leaders’ seven-match winning run fell agonisingly short. Thomas missed a chance to move the Llanelli outfit back in front on the half hour, following good carries from Richard Kelly and busy scrum-half Rhodri Williams. An injury to Casey brought former Ireland Under-20 captain Niall Scannell on for his competitive debut for the province, who also had to take off tighthead prop BJ Botha after he picked up a knock. The Scarlets, who did the double over Munster last season, bolted into a 10-3 lead early in the second period thanks to Barclay’s converted effort just two minutes in. Kristian Phillips spearheaded a break from deep and Aled Thomas then found a gap between Scannell and Hanrahan, with Barclay on his shoulder to take the scoring pass. Thomas converted and Munster were quick to respond with Hanrahan’s right boot punishing Ken Owens for going off his feet at a ruck. Although the hosts’ passing let them down at times, Munster were beginning to gather some momentum and Hanrahan made it a one-point game after Josh Turnbull infringed in front of the posts. Turnbull came to the Scarlets’ rescue when he kicked the ball from Duncan Williams’ grasp as Munster probed close in for an elusive try. A subsequent penalty from distance was missed by Hanrahan. Things started to unravel for the visitors when prop Rob Evans was binned for some loose play at a Munster line-out, and then replacement Poole saw yellow for a tip tackle on Barry O’Mahony, Ronan’s brother. The breakthrough looked like it might not come as Rob McCusker marshalled an impressive show of resistance from the Scarlets, and Munster abandoned their hopes of a drop goal when Duncan Williams dummied and scampered through a gap. The home side picked from a couple of close range rucks before Hanrahan’s well-delivered kick out to the right sat up nicely for O’Mahony to score. Television match official Dermot Moloney cleared a potential knock-on in the build-up and referee Nigel Owens was happy that O’Mahony was onside for the ruck, allowing Munster to celebrate another nail-biting victory. Munster dished up another dose of injury-time heroics as Ronan O’Mahony’s last-gasp try denied the 13-man Scarlets at Musgrave Park. Press Association Rob Evans (73 minutes) and Mike Poole (76) were sin-binned in quick succession as Simon Easterby’s men scrapped for what would have been a rare win on the road – the Welsh side have only beaten Connacht away since November 2012. Aled Thomas and man-of-the-match Hanrahan kicked a penalty apiece as the sides went in at the break on level terms (3-3), with neither try-line truly threatened. That changed on the resumption as Munster made a lacklustre start to the second half in allowing flanker John Barclay to touch down under the posts. Hanrahan kicked two penalties to close the gap and although he missed a 69th minute shot at the posts, the Kerry native took centre stage in another riveting rescue mission. Despite the wintry conditions, there was a free-flowing start to the game and plenty of activity in the Munster half before Gareth Maule was wayward with a drop-goal attempt. Hanrahan also missed the target from a seventh minute penalty after Gareth Owen prevented a quick line-out by throwing the ball away. Ivan Dineen was prominent for the hosts in defence and attack, but the Scarlets took the lead in the 14th minute thanks to a penalty from out-half Thomas. A well-executed line-out maul with new hooker Duncan Casey piling into the Scarlets’ 22 set up Hanrahan for his levelling 23rd-minute kick.
Ross, Gajnabi win big at 2019 Gregory Gaskin Memorial Sports AwardNATIONAL Volleyball player Shamroy Ross and West Indies female cricketer Shabika Gajnabi were among the headliners at the recently concluded 2019 Rose Hall Town Youth and Sports Club’s (RHTYSC) Annual Gregory Gaskin Memorial Berbice Sports Award.An attacking outsider Ross, along with Gajnabi, won the respective Male and Female Sports Award for 2019 while another West Indies female cricketer Erva Giddings received the Lifetime Achievement Award for her contribution to cricket over the last fifteen years.The Berbice Cricket Board (BCB) carried home the Sports Organisation-of-the-Year award while businessman Deonarine Balram of the popular Shane General Store was named Sports Personality for his support of all sports in the Ancient County during this year.RHTYSC Secretary/CEO Hilbert Foster stated that the 10 cricket teams are forging ahead with plans to fulfil most of their activities despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. This is being done while observing the strict guidelines set by the government.He disclosed that due to social distancing, no official programme was held but the awardees were invited to receive their awards on an individual basis.Foster noted the importance of sports in the development of character of youths and hailed all the awardees as positive role models for youths to emulate. He urged them to uphold the high standards they have set themselves in the past and to work even harder to achieve more success.The RHTYSC, Foster stated would continue to be the premier youth and sports organisation in Guyana and was proud to be involved in honouring the memory of Gaskin.Ross in 2019 represented Guysuco Training Centre, Berbice and the National volleyball team with great success as an outside attacker. He was named the Berbice Volleyball Association Most Valuable Player for 2019.Gajnabi made her debut for the West Indies at the senior level after outstanding performance for Berbice and Guyana. Giddings made her West Indies debut in 2008 and over the years has been an outstanding performer for RHTYSC, Berbice and Guyana.For over a decade, Giddings has played among her male counterparts at the second division level with great success, claiming over 200 wickets.The Sports Personality-of-the-Year Deonarine Balram is known across Berbice for his wholehearted support of sports and over the last 20 years has been the sole sponsor of the Balram Shane Memorial cricket and volleyball tournaments.RHTYSC Assistant Secretary Simon Naidu handed over all the awards which included a trophy, medal, certificate of excellence and a collection of special prizes.The 10 cricket teams of the RHTYSC are: Poonai Pharmacy Under-12 and U-13, Farfan and Mendes U-15, Bakewell U-17 and Second Division, Pepsi U-19 and Intermediate, Metro Female, NAMILCO Thunderbolt U-21 and First Division.The joint RHTYSC/BCB Basil Butcher Memorial project has distributed over $4M worth of items and sponsored several events in tribute to the legendary West Indies batsman who died last December at the age of 86.The Award is held yearly in memory of Gregory Gaskin, late founder of COPS Security Service and an outstanding supporter of sports in Guyana.
On paper, the No. 20 Wisconsin football team had little business being on the same field as No. 3 Alabama Saturday night.Games aren’t won on paper, though, and the Badgers were out to prove that.Didn’t go so well.In back-to-back seasons now, Wisconsin lost its prime-time season opener against a Southeastern Conference west division powerhouse. Last year, the Badgers let an early lead slip away in the fourth quarter during a 28-24 loss to LSU in 2014, also in Texas.For the second straight year, the Badgers have missed an opportunity to prove to the nation that they belong on the same field as those teams.The game essentially ended when Rafael Gaglianone lined up for a 34-yard line with three seconds left in the first half of a 14-7 game against Alabama Saturday night.Had the sophomore kicker carried over his consistency from last season when he made his final 14 attempts, the Wisconsin football team would have entered the locker room down four and with a legitimate chance of pulling off an upset.But Gaglianone pushed his kick right and the ball pinged off the right goal post. Wisconsin couldn’t get it going again, and the Crimson Tide rolled to a 35-17 win at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas.But after all of the hype heading into Saturday night’s matchup against the third-ranked team in the nation and a blue-blood football program, there’s still an entire season left to play. A whole 11 games to go. And fortunately for Wisconsin, Saturday was most likely the only time they entered a game as underdogs.Sure, there were mishaps and glaring faults Saturday night. Wisconsin head coach Paul Chryst said the coaching staff counted 17 missed tackles. That was the entire unit’s fault, outside linebacker Joe Schobert, who had a game-high 13 tackles, said.“Everybody on defense had mistakes the other night,” Schobert said. “Like I said, we’re gonna learn from it.”And if last season is any indicator, the Badgers will learn from it. History tends to repeat itself.The hype from the fans and media were about that one game because, to be honest, it’s the only exciting matchup for the Badgers for a while, at least until the standings begin to shake out and a trip to Indianapolis is on the horizon.“We knew who we were opening up with and who we were going to play for our last game and we knew everyone in between,” Chryst said. “There was a lot of buildup to our first game, but the guys have been pointing to a lot more than just that game. And I’m glad; it stung me, it stung the players. Any time you go out there and put yourself out there and compete, it’s going to — but also, our kids didn’t just point to one game and that was going to be it.”Like last year, no team on the remaining non-conference schedule poses a threat. The three non-conference opponents left are Miami (Ohio), Hawaii and Troy, who posted a combined record of 9-28 last season.Then, Big Ten play begins, and the Big Ten West is greatly inferior compared to its counterparts. The Badgers’ conference foes are the same as last season, when they went 7-1 in conference play before the “Massacre of Indianapolis” during the Big Ten Championship game.It’s not deja vú, but it’s pretty close.On paper, there’s no reason the Badgers can’t win the West and find themselves playing for the Big Ten Title at Lucas Oil Stadium for the fourth time in five years — and quarterback Joel Stave knows that.“The undefeated season is now out of the question,” Stave said. “But besides that, we still have everything we want in front of us. It’s just a matter of taking everything one day and one week at a time.”Stave did all he could on the AT&T Stadium turf, but a non-existent running game doomed the offense from the start. A year removed from losing the starting job to Tanner McEvoy, Stave shined in the spotlight, throwing for 228 yards and two touchdowns, while completing 26-of-38 passes.But players aren’t defined by one game, especially the first one. Neither are seasons. That’s the beauty of football, junior cornerback Sojourn Shelton said.“It’s tough to understand, but you just have so much more to fight for,” Shelton said. “Just fix mistakes and get that first W.”For the Badgers to succeed, Corey Clement and Michael Caputo need to get healthy. The offensive line needs to improve. The question marks are there, but the road to Indianapolis is paved — on paper at least.Problem is, games aren’t won on paper.