Leaders who publicly threaten journalists

first_img July 17, 2015 – Updated on January 30, 2017 Leaders who publicly threaten journalists “If censorship reigns, there cannot be sincere flattery, and none but little men are afraid oflittle writings,” Pierre Beaumarchais wrote in The Marriage of Figaro. In this presentation, Reporters Without Borders denounces the “little presidents” who publicly attack journalists and media outlets instead of responding to their criticism.Reporting is a dangerous job in some countries and journalists who ask irritating questions or shine a light on government corruption often find themselves the targets of presidential anger.Some presidents tolerate no disagreement, not even the least debate. Others routinely identify any expression of doubt as an act of opposition, sedition or conspiracy, or as foreign interference. Others, the repeat offenders, wage campaigns of harassment against the media outlets or journalists they dislike.And finally, there are those who say nothing because they already have such an effective system of censorship that there is never any need to issue reminders to already compliant media. From veiled allusions to open death threats, the style varies from country to country but the goal remains the same – to gag information.“A threshold is crossed when a head of state lets loose a stream of verbal abuse against media personnel who are just doing their work,” Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Christophe Deloire said. “How can journalists function normally if the state that is supposed to guarantee their safety is headed by a person who holds them up to contempt, bullies them and threatens them, opening the way to abuses against the media that go unpunished.”The examples chosen reflect the characteristics of the relationship between the state and journalists in each region. Individually, some of these comments may seem relatively harmless, but collectively they highlight the shocking climate of tension to which journalists are exposed in certain countries.LATIN AMERICAMany Latin American presidents do not hesitate to berate the news media and vilify journalism in their public addresses. Their attacks are frontal and accusatory. Some incite hatred and even violence. This is very worrying. Such insults coming from the highest level of the state can only further undermine freedom of information, which is already under attack in Latin America. And they are liable to be interpreted as a blank cheque for abuses against journalists.Some presidents choose to attack journalists to avoid debating ideas. In very polarized countries where the media are often used for political ends, accusing journalists of being biased or plotting against the government is easier than responding to criticism. Instead of eliciting a response, instead of prompting a debate, independent journalism just meets with slander and insults. Any criticism of government policy is liable to be branded as an attack on the country.According to the Declaration on Principles of Freedom of Expression by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), presidents are supposed to guarantee the safety of their fellow citizens. Instead, verbal abuse of the media by presidents such as Maduro, Correa and Hernández foster a dangerous climate of censorship, self-censorship and impunity for violence against journalists.When Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro gives news conferences (at which questions from journalists are never welcome), he rarely misses an opportunity to accuse foreign news media such as CNN en Español and the Miami Herald of waging an “international campaign” against Venezuela. When inaugurating homes paid for by the government in September 2014, he referred to a plan to “poison and dump their poison on Venezuela and elsewhere in the world,” using virulent language to accuse the media of being biased and pursuing a hidden agenda.Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa uses the same methods in his weekly TV broadcasts known as “Enlaces Ciudadanos” (Citizen Liaisons). In Enlace Ciudadano No. 424 on 16 May 2015, he attacked the editor of the Crudo Ecuador website, threatening to “respond with the same weapons.” And, in reaction to TV presenter Alfonso Espinosa’s comments on plans to eliminate term limits for elected politicians, he accused journalists of using “the opposition’s dishonest discourse to demonize what is perfectly legitimate, democratic and transparent.”Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández paid tribute to journalists in his own special way on 25 May 2015, celebrated as Day of the Journalist in Honduras. Reacting to allegations of ruling National Party involvement in embezzling social security funds, he lashed out as “pseudo-journalists (who) dissemble, distort and invent.”EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIAInsulting journalists is an integral part of President Erdogan’s methods, which are characterized by populism, conspiracy theories and intolerance. In response to criticism, he usually tries to smear his critics. If they are lucky, he just calls them “ignorant.” But he is more likely to brand them as “agents of subversion,” “foreign spies” or even some kind of “terrorist.” These verbal attacks are symptomatic of the authoritarian tendencies of a leader whose vision of the world is becoming more and more polarized and paranoid. The loss of his parliamentary majority should force him to seek consensus. Will it also put a stop to his insults?The all-powerful Chechen president’s crude language and inappropriate comments help to sustain the climate of arbitrary rule and fear that dominates his long-suffering republic. Mixing his private and public lives, Ramzan Kadyrov posts praise and blistering attacks on Instagram along with photos of his family, friends and associates. His nefarious reputation, the summary methods employed by his militiamen, and the tragic fate suffered by many of his opponents lend a great deal of weight to his words.But verbal excesses are just one element in an extensive arsenal of intimidatory methods. While allowing government propaganda to create an increasingly hostile environment, Russian President Vladimir Putin usually refrains from direct attacks on critical journalists, pretending to be unaware of them. Central Asia’s eternal despots, ever mindful to maintain a presidential stature often bordering on deification, are usually restrained in their public statements. And anyway, the Turkmen, Uzbek and Kazakh leaders have suppressed pluralism so effectively that virtually no critical journalists are left.EUROPEAN UNION AND BALKANS“When I look at you, I understand why you are always negative. Nothing positive can come from you, anyway (…) The fact that you raise these subjects is not surprising. You come from a newspaper of a certain kind and, obviously, from an ethnic background of that certain too. You do it on purpose.”This was the response that President Milorad Dodik of the Republika Srpska, the Serbian part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, gave to a question from Gordana Katana of the independent daily Oslobodenje during a news conference on 14 March 2015. She had asked him about a relative of his who had been given a prison sentence and was on the run. Not content with these comments, Dodik subsequently ordered all government departments to cancel their Oslobodenje subscriptions.Elected in 2010, the ultranationalist Dodik lords it over a country with widespread corruption and clientelism, and reacts with hostility to difficult questions from journalists, especially female ones. When a woman journalist with the TV programme 60 Minutes asked him a question, he replied: “You work for 60 Minutes? It’s a really lousy programme, it’s complete crap (…) I see that you at least are presentable. But you’re not pretty.” Such aggressiveness towards journalists is not unique in the Balkans, where it is used to deter media interest in matters involving the government and to divert attention by creating controversy.The method is also used elsewhere in Europe including the European Union, where more and more leading politicians are being aggressive towards journalists. Last year, Hungary’s deputy prime minister described investigative journalists as “traitors” and said they were working for a “foreign power.” In France, the leaders of the far-right National Front often insult and intimidate journalists, treating them with a hostility that is increasingly seen across the entire French political spectrum.AFRICAJournalists in Africa are often treated as spies, terrorists or traitors, and are subjected to threats and physical attacks (that are rarely punished) and to judicial harassment designed to discourage them from investigating potentially embarrassing stories. Protected by a compliant judicial system and by security services that keep the pressure on journalists who don’t toe the line, Africa’s presidents constantly proclaim their undying attachment to media freedom and democracy. But from time to time, the varnish cracks.This is how Gambia’s President Yayah Jammeh spoke of journalists in 2011: “The journalists are less than 1 percent of the population, and if anybody expects me to allow less than 1 percent of the population to destroy 99 percent of the population, you are in the wrong place.” And he added: “I don’t have an opposition. What we have are people that hate the country, and I will not work with them.”Investigative journalism is too often accused of being a form of opposition politics. Obviously there are politicized news media in Africa, but journalists who do nothing more than call on the authorities to account for their actions or draw attention to the population’s problems find themselves accused of “hating their country and government.”Guinea may be less dangerous than Gambia, but journalists (and those who defend them) are treated no less dismissively there by President Alpha Condé. Journalists, he said in November 2014, “can do anything they like (…) They can write what they want. It is of no importance. I don’t read newspapers, I don’t go online and I don’t listen to radio stations.” And he added: “I don’t give a damn what Reporters Without Borders writes (…) they don’t rule Guinea. I’m not scared of international law or human rights (…) Everyone will respect the law in Guinea.”But if Guinea’s authorities are indifferent to what journalists say, why did the High Authority for Communication ban live discussion programmes and restrict press reviews in the national media in the run-up to this year’s presidential election?Displaying complete contempt for journalists and their “idiotic” questions is also Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s way of dealing with the media. During an African Union summit in Cairo in 2010, Mugabe’s bodyguards manhandled a British journalist who dared to ask on what basis he considered himself president. “Are your security guards going to hit me in front of the cameras?” the journalist asked. The enraged Mugabe replied: “Stop asking stupid questions. You are an idiot.”Mugabe brushed aside a journalist’s questions in a similar fashion in April 2014, saying: “I don’t want to see a white face.” And he dislikes not only seeing troublesome journalists but also being seen by them. His security detail forced several journalists to delete the photos they had taken of him falling as he left Harare airport in February 2015. When you’re trying to portray a 91-year-old president as still indestructible, the public eye can be a big nuisance.ASIAThailand’s prime minister, Gen. Prayut Chan-o-cha was asked at a news conference on 25 March 2015 what the government would do to journalists who do not stick to the official line. “We’ll probably just execute them,” he replied tersely.Since imposing martial law in May 2014, Gen. Prayut has cracked down hard on those who defy his policies and defend the fundamental right to criticize. He has gagged reporters, bloggers and news outlets regarded as overly critical of himself or his military government. The growing hostility towards the media being voiced publicly by Prayut has drawn the entire world’s attention to his contempt for freedom of information and its defenders, regarded as a threat to the nation.Prayut clearly does not think it is the job of journalists to question the government. On the contrary, speaking on 5 March, celebrated as “Reporters Day” in Thailand, he said journalists should “play a major role in supporting the government’s affairs, practically creating the understanding of government’s policies to the public, and reduce the conflicts in the society.”Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung’s policy with journalists is to brand them as malevolent enemies and to dismiss revelations about communist party corruption as “despicable stratagems by hostile forces.” When Dung threatens outspoken bloggers with “severe punishments,” the deterrent effect is guaranteed because no fewer than 27 citizen-journalists and bloggers are currently detained in Vietnam. In 2012 alone, the Vietnamese authorities prosecuted no fewer than 48 bloggers and human rights defenders, sentencing them to a total of 166 years in prison and 63 years of probation.Chinese presidents rarely refer to media freedom. It took a joint news conference with US President Barack Obama in November 2014 for Xi Jinping to take a public position on the issue. The difficult question obviously did not come from a Chinese reporter. Alluding to censorship of the New York Times after it revealed the wealth of then Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s family in 2012, a New York Times reporter asked if Beijing was going to lift its restrictions on foreign journalists working in China. Xi replied: “In Chinese, we have a saying: ‘The party which has created the problem should be the one to help resolve it.’ So perhaps we should look into the problem to see where the cause lies.”The Chinese president’s attempt to shift the blame on to the foreign media did not unfortunately receive the international condemnation it deserved. According to a survey by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China, nearly one China-based foreign correspondent in 10 has been threatened with the non-renewal of their visa because of what they have written. The New York Times has not been able to appoint new China correspondents because the government systematically refuses to give them visas.When Burma’s President Thein Sein issued a warning to the media during a radio address in July 2014, his words were not taken lightly. “If media freedom threatens national security instead of helping the nation, I want to warn all that we will take effective action under existing laws,” the president said. Seven journalists have been jailed in Burma since the start of 2014. Usurping the press council’s role, the authorities have taken it upon themselves to act as the guarantors of journalistic ethics and to severely punish media outlets deemed guility of professional misconduct.Like the accusation of endangering national security or state interests, the charge of “sedition” is one of the ways government leaders use to gag the media. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak often uses the newly-reinforced Sedition Act to order prosecutions of journalists, bloggers and other critics including the cartoonist Zunar. And Najib does not hesitate to directly and publicly threaten media outlets with legal action. He says he is ready to listen to “constructive criticism” from journalists, but when they cover abusive government practices, he orders police raids designed to censor and deter media from continuing to cover Malaysian politics freely.MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICAInstead of direct verbal attacks on journalists, Middle Eastern leaders usually resort to illegal arrests, arbitrary prison sentences, torture and enforced disappearances when expressing their contempt for the media.Middle Eastern journalists are often convicted on such charges as “disseminating false information endangering state security,” “supporting or condoning terrorism” or “disturbing public order.” Many have been treated as spies, liars or idiots, but few presidents have publicly voiced such accusations.Most of the region’s leaders give few interviews and carefully vet the media that are granted access. This is the case with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who has been very inaccessible since the start of the crisis in Syria although it is the world’s deadliest country for journalists. It is also the case with Algeria’s President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who has rarely been exposed to the media since his health deteriorated.Ali Khamenei has never given an interview or news conference since taking over as the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Supreme Leader in 1989. In 2000, he described the pro-reform press that had emerged since President Mohammad Khatami’s election in 1997 as “a base of operations by foreign enemies inside our country.” The comment was accompanied by an order to carry out raids on journalists and media outlets.Since then, at least 300 media outlets have been closed as “foreign enemies within the country,” thousands of news websites have been censored and more than 500 journalists, bloggers and other online information activists have been arbitrarily arrested, tortured and given long jail terms, while many others have had to flee abroad. New media and satellite TV stations broadcasting to Iran from outside the country are the latest targets. Iran is now one of the world’s biggest prisons for journalists, like Egypt, where journalists who do not toe the government line are accused by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of being “terrorists.” Not that a great deal is said on the subject. Sisi’s regime prefers imprisonment to insults.As for the Gulf monarchies, they rarely address the national media and do not insult journalists publicly because they are concerned about their international image. Independent and critical media are nonetheless rarely tolerated in these countries, where censorship and self-censorship prevail. The only space that may still be found for freedom of expression and information is online. News Help by sharing this information There are heads of state and governments who publicly refer to journalists in a contemptuous, insulting, defamatory or racist manner, violating the principle of freedom of information and drawing attention to the terrible pressure to which media personnel are often subjected just for doing their job. Organisation RSF_en last_img read more

Atlantic City Lifeguard Classic

first_imgOn a warm and pleasant summer evening the Atlantic City Lifeguard Classic entertained a large enthusiastic crowd.   Below is a list of the top finishers in each event, as well as the overall winners:Doubles Boat RaceMargatelongportAvalonAtlantic CityWildwoodHalf Mile SwimOcean CityBrigantineAvalonMargateSea Isle CitySingles Boat RaceMargateAvalonAtlantic CityBrigantineWildwoodDoubles Rescue RaceAtlantic CityWildwoodUpper TownshipMargateLongportOverall WinnersMargateAvalonAtlantic Citylast_img read more

TV’s Peter Sidwell helps NHS with healthy offering

first_imgTV chef and judge on Britain’s Best Bakery Peter Sidwell is to help NHS Scotland in creating healthy bakery options in its coffee shop chain Aroma.The coffee brand, owned by the NHS, will work with Sidwell to introduce more healthy baked goods to its hospital cafés.Sidwell said this would also be part of plans to expand the Aroma brand further into England and Wales. Giving a talk at the Scottish Bakers Conference last weekend about healthy baking, he said: “Health is something you either treat as a threat or you treat it as an opportunity. Be part of the revolution and you will reap the benefits. “As a nation we are going to have to change the way we eat.”Sidwell also claimed he had come up with a ‘healthy’ pastry for pies, which he said tasted just as good as a regular pastry. Aroma is the NHS’ own brand which was launched into Scotland in 2009. The profits from the cafés are ploughed into the NHS. There are currently 17 Aroma cafés in 12 Scottish hospitals.last_img read more

Universities as peacemakers

first_imgHarvard Divinity School (HDS) Dean David Hempton knows too well the cost of religious conflict. As a college student in Belfast in the 1970s, he witnessed the “tragedies of violence” that marked “The Troubles” between the Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland.But Hempton also saw “inspiring examples of people of faith on both sides of that division using religion to overcome violence and promote understanding and healing,” he told a crowd at HDS Monday evening.Following an “overwhelming” response to his inaugural 2012 convocation address about those difficult years in his homeland, Hempton said he began to understand “the power of exploring practical ways for HDS and the University to make even more of a difference in our world.”One of those practical exercises unfolded Monday as a panel of experts versed in religion, pluralism, politics, conflict resolution, and international peace gathered to explore how universities can help create interreligious dialogues, collaboration, and peacemaking.The group agreed that universities are uniquely poised to help educate people about the myriad dimensions and shared values of the world’s religions, to forge interdisciplinary connections that shed light on how religion can influence conflict, poverty, and the environment, and to convene scholars, experts, and the public for far-ranging, multifaith discussions.Offering a political perspective was Shaun Casey, an ethicist and special adviser to the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for faith-based community initiatives. The HDS and Harvard Kennedy School graduate said his new department is part of “a quiet revolution” of engagement with religious leaders and communities around issues of pluralism, regional security and stability, and humanitarian efforts. Harvard can help in that effort, Casey said, by creating joint degree programs that combine areas such as law, international relations, and development with religious studies.“Who is going to train the people I need to hire?” Casey wondered aloud. “We do not have people who are well-trained on the political side as well as the religious studies side. Harvard is uniquely poised to overcome that.”Matthew Hodes, director of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, said his organization is one of many that are planning systems and doctrine based on the best ways to use intercultural and interreligious dialogue “as a bridging element in our policy.” For help in that endeavor, Hodes said he wouldn’t hesitate to turn to Harvard Law School’s (HLS) Program on Negotiation.“It is a globally understood leader in the field of not only practice, but also the development of doctrine on everything from interparty negotiations on a bilateral level to multilateral mediation. And I would suggest to those of you who are interested in pursing dialogue processes, this is the place where the synergy that exists at Harvard needs to be applied the most.”Harvard’s Jocelyne Cesari echoed Casey’s call for universities to develop an interdisciplinary approach to studying and understanding religion. Too often, said Cesari, a lecturer on Islamic studies and a research associate at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, her American colleagues in political science harbor inhibitions when it comes to religion.“One of the major arguments I receive all the time is, ‘Oh, we don’t do theology.’ And this cuts the dialogue right there,” Cesari said. “How can you work together if you don’t take into account also what your colleague does?”HLS Dean Martha Minow, whose experience with conflict and human rights includes her work with the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, said the University can play a role by incorporating “discussion, debating, collaborating, and listening” skills further into the curriculum. “We don’t talk about it as explicitly as we ought to, even thought it’s the medium of our business,” said Minow.Universities can also be important places to convene varied discussions around religion, said Minow, and places to explore the overlap as well as the differences among religious traditions.“The risk of assuming that you understand is so much greater than the risk of saying ‘We are different’ … It’s the over-presumption that, I think, leads to the resentment, leads to the identity concerns. … I think that universities are places where people can talk about the content of religion.”Jonathan Granoff, president of the Global Security Institute and special representative of the United Religions Initiative, explained that creating a venue where dialogue, debate, and communion can freely take place is hugely important in forging an ethical foundation for global community.“I believe that if Harvard were to create such a multidisciplinary, multidimensional place, it would really electrify the academic world,” he said.Harvard’s Diana Eck, professor of comparative religion and Indian studies at HDS and Fredric Wertham Professor of Law and Psychiatry in Society, moderated the panel. HDS professor Diana L. Eck moderated this panel discussion, featuring: Martha Minow, Dean of Harvard Law School; Shaun Casey, MDiv ’83, ThD ’98, special advisor to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for faith-based community initiatives; Jocelyne Cesari, Lecturer on Islamic Studies at HDS and director of Harvard’s Islam in the West Program; Jonathan Granoff, president of the Global Security Institute and special representative of the United Religions Initiative; and Matthew Hodes, director of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. <a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOrxjAhz2UE” rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank”> <img src=”https://img.youtube.com/vi/HOrxjAhz2UE/0.jpg” alt=”0″ title=”How To Choose The Correct Channel Type For Your Video Content ” /> </a>center_img Religions & Peace: Do Universities Have a Role?last_img read more

Missing ‘Big Three’ means new kind of pressure for last four at U.S. Open

first_imgNEW YORK,  (Reuters) – The perennial challenge for the men’s field at any Grand Slam has been taking down one of the dominant ‘Big Three’, but for those left at this year’s U.S. Open, it is about tamping down the pressure of playing a semi-final shorn of tennis’ titans.The aggressive, nothing-to-lose mentality a player might adopt as he gazes across the net at Rafa Nadal, Roger Federer or world number one Novak Djokovic no longer applies at Flushing Meadows.With Nadal and Federer both skipping the tournament, Djokovic’s sensational exit on Sunday after hitting a line judge in the throat with a ball opened up the field for a younger cohort of players.Germany’s Alexander Zverev faces Spain’s Pablo Carreno Busta and Austrian Dominic Thiem takes on Russia’s Daniil Medvedev in their respective last-four encounters with all seeking to secure a maiden Grand Slam singles title.“The Novak news shocked us all, and obviously for us younger guys, we see that as a massive opportunity, but we have to put our head down and just do our job and focus on ourselves,” said fifth-seed Zverev, who plays Carreno Busta on Friday.Second seed Thiem, who was beaten by world number one Djokovic in this year’s Australian Open final, and third seed Medvedev, who lost to Nadal in last year’s U.S. Open decider, will look to tame the jitters that come with added expectation when they face off  today.“I don’t think any of the players have been in this situation often. Maybe Dominic (Thiem) and Daniil (Medvedev) more often,” said Canadian 12th seed Denis Shapovalov, whose own bid for a first Grand Slam title ended at the hands of Carreno Busta in the quarter-finals.“There’s a lot of dark horses out there. It’s anybody’s slam. It’s very exciting for tennis. It’s definitely causing a lot of nervous matches,” he added.Thiem said he is not underestimating the challenges presented by the remaining competitors.“There is no Roger, Rafa or Novak but there is Daniil, Sascha (Zverev) and Pablo now. They are three amazing players. Every single one of us deserves the first major title. Everyone will give it all and that’s all that is on the mind,” said Thiem.“Once we step on the court the other three (Big Three) are forgotten anyway.”last_img read more

Top seed goes the distance to reach semi-finals

first_img Top seed Caroline Berry went the distance today to claim her place in the semi-finals of the English senior women’s amateur championship at South Staffordshire Gold Club.She played 19 this morning and 18 this afternoon to claim her place in the final four, playing Aileen Greenfield of Sussex. The other match will be between Lulu Housman and Fiona Edmond.“I’ve had a lot of golf,” laughed Berry, pictured top, (Bromborough, Cheshire), after she birdied the last to beat Devon’s Jo Shorrocks in the quarter finals. Earlier, her England team-mate Cath Rawthore had birded the same hole to force their morning game down the 19th.“I’ve putted well and that’s been the main part of my game. I’ve just got to trust my swing a little bit more, occasionally I throw in the odd negative ninny shot!” said Berry, who won this title in 2010. “I knew I was going to have tough games today so I’m really pleased.”Greenfield (Pyecombe, Sussex) ended local hopes when she defeated Staffordshire’s Julie Brown (Trentham) 2/1 in their quarter final. Brown, the 2014 champion, had the early advantage but the turning point for Greenfield was a birdie on 11 which got her back to all square and she pushed on from there.It’s the first time she’s reached the semi-finals and it vindicates her decision to play in the championship, despite the pain from a hip which needs replacing. Her approach of gritted teeth, supported by painkillers, is working well. “I wasn’t sure whether I could do it but I thought I might as well give it a go,” she said.Fiona Edmond (Ipswich, Suffolk) is making her debut in senior ranks and was an unknown quantity at the start of the championship. But she’s working through the rounds in a way which reminds onlookers that she was an England international in the early 1990s.Today she set off at a great pace in both her matches and reached the turn at four up in the morning against former champion Helen Lowe and five up in the quarter final against senior stroke play champion Jackie Foster (Bishops Stortford). In both matches she was pulled back over the inward holes but ran out the winner 2/1 and 3/2 respectively.The final match on the course involved Lulu Housman (pictured right), a past senior stroke play winner who was under par this morning when she knocked out Janet Melville, and Felicity Christine, a former British senior champion, who had to go to the 21st this morning to defeat the host club’s Annette Deeley.The quarter final was a tight affair with never more than one hole between the players. Housman (Wyke Green, Middlesex) got ahead on the short 15th but lost 17, where her second was partially blocked by a tree, and went back to all square.On the 18th it was Christine (Woking, Surrey) who had to play out from the trees on the right of the fairway and, after her second found sand, it cost her a bogey. Housman, meanwhile, played steadily for a par and the place in the semi-final.In the second flight for the Ann Howard Trophy – contested by over-60s – the final will be between Rosie Waller (Kendal, Cumbria) and Carol Cass (Broadstone, Dorset).This morning Waller beat Sue Pidgeon (Wrekin, Shropshire) and followed up with a semi-final win over Sue Westall (Copt Heath, Warwickshire). Cass beat Carol Wild (Notts Ladies) in the quarter-finals and Jo Rumsey (Rochford Hundred, Essex) this afternoon.Click here for full scoresImages © Leaderboard Photography 18 May 2017 Top seed goes the distance to reach semi-finals last_img read more

100% Bonus Depreciation Acquisition Rules for Constructed Property and Components

first_imgtreat property constructed fora taxpayer under a binding contract as self-constructed, and allow taxpayers to claim 100%bonus on components acquired after September 27, 2017, even if the larger constructedproperty is acquired before September 28, 2017. Similarly, a “self-constructed” componentconsidered acquired before September 28, 2017 under the significant physicalwork test or 10% safe harbor does not qualify for bonus depreciation at the 100percent rate (Reg.§1.168(k)-2(b)(5)(iv)(C)(2)). Significantly, the rules: If the larger property is acquired beforeSeptember 28, 2017, a taxpayer may elect 100% bonus depreciation on componentsof the property that are acquired after September 27, 2017. A  taxpayer makes the election by attaching astatement to the income tax return in the year the larger property is placed inservice. If the election does not apply to all qualifying components acquiredafter September 27, 2017, the statement must identify the components that arecovered by the election (ProposedReg. §1.168(k)-2(c)). 10% Safe Harbor For additional information on the acquisitiondate rules for constructed property see the CCH Answer Connect Topic Pages entitled: Login to read more on CCHAnswerConnect. COMMENT: The 10% safe harbor election isespecially useful in delaying the acquisition date for an accrual basistaxpayer. The cost of property constructed for a taxpayer is generally notincurred until the property is delivered to the taxpayer upon completion of theproject in the case of a turnkey contract (IRSLetter Ruling 201210004, November 22, 2011). Manyconstruction contracts are not turnkey but rather “design-bid-build” methodcontracts. Depending upon the terms of the contract, amounts can be incurred instages (Field AttorneyAdvice 2014020F, January 16, 2014).  It appears that under the “facts andcircumstances” test, construction work on a component built off-site may needto be taken into account in determining whether physical work of a significantnature has begun on the larger structure. The IRS regulations are silent on thispoint except to provide the obvious example  that construction of a retail motor fuelsoutlet assembled from modular units manufactured off site begins when physicalwork of a significant nature begins off-site (Reg.§1.168(k)-2(b)(5)(iv)(B)). The original proposed regulations denied 100%bonus depreciation on all of the components of a larger property acquiredbefore September 28, 2017, regardless of the acquisition date of the components.Consequently, no portion of the cost of the larger property could qualify forthe 100% rate. This means that the acquisition date ofthird-party construction is also determined by reference to the dateconstruction begins under the significant physical activity test or under the 10%safe harbor.  Both of these testssignificantly delay the acquisition date beyond the contract date, making iteasier to qualify for 100% bonus depreciation. Planning or designingSecuring financingExploring or researchingClearing a siteTest drilling to determine soilconditionExcavation to change thecontour of land Election for Components Acquired After September 27, 2017 Property constructed for a taxpayer by athird party is almost always constructed under a binding written contract.Regulations originally proposed by the IRS provided that the 100% bonus ratedid not apply to third-party construction if a binding written contract wasentered into before September 28, 2017. This exclusion for acquired and self-constructedcomponents considered acquired before September 28, 2017, applies even if thelarger self-constructed property is considered acquired after September 27,2017. The cost of an “acquired” component of a self-constructedproperty (including property constructed for the taxpayer under a contract andconsidered self-constructed) does not qualify for the 100% bonus depreciationrate if it is acquired under a written binding contract entered into beforeSeptember 28, 2017 (Reg.§1.168(k)-2(b)(5)(iv)(C)(1)). Property Constructed for the Taxpayercenter_img New final and proposed regulations explainhow to determine the acquisition date of constructed property that can qualifyfor 100% bonus depreciation (Reg.§1.168(k)-2(b)(5); ProposedReg. §1.168(k)-2(c)).Property constructed by or for a taxpayer qualifies for 100% bonus depreciationonly if it is: Property Constructed by the Taxpayer Special Rules for Components of Self-Constructed Property For example, the turbine constructed forthe taxpayer in the preceding example does not qualify for 100 percent bonusdepreciation because it was acquired before September 28, 2017, under both thephysical work of a significant nature and 10% safe harbors. The turbine isconsidered self-constructed because it was acquired under a written bindingcontract entered into before construction began. EXAMPLE: ABC, an accrual basis steelmanufacturer, enters into a binding contract in October 2016 for theconstruction of a turbine that will be part of a self-constructed powergeneration plant. ABC incurs the cost for the turbine when it is delivered inAugust 2017. ABC is treated as acquiring the plant before September 28, 2017,if the safe harbor is elected and the cost of the turbine plus any other costsincurred toward construction before September 28, 2017 is more than 10% of thetotal cost of the plant  (ProposedReg. §1.168(k)-2(c)(7)(ii)), Example 2). Accounting for Deductions Under the Accrual Method Many comment letters asked the IRS to changethis rule and create an exception similar to the one previously provided in Rev.Rul. 2011-26 for the 100% bonus rate that applied to propertyacquired after September 8, 2010, and before January 1, 2012.The IRS agreed to these requests. This rule, however, was abandoned in finalregulations.  Instead, propertyconstructed for a taxpayer under a binding written contract entered into beforethe beginning of construction is considered self-constructed (Reg.§1.168(k)-2(b)(5)(ii)(A)). Under an elective safe harbor, constructionbegins on the date that more than 10% of the total cost of construction is paidfor by a cash basis taxpayer or incurred by an accrual basis taxpayer (Reg.§1.168(k)-2(b)(5)(iv)(B)). The cost of preliminary activities land does notcount toward the 10% safe harbor. Bonus Depreciation or First-Year Additional Depreciation Allowance acquired after September 27,2017, and placed in service before 2023 (orbefore 2024 for “long production property”).  Property constructed by a taxpayer for itsown use is acquired on the date that construction begins. Construction generallybegins on the date that physical work of a significant nature begins. This is afacts and circumstances test. By Ray G. Suelzer, J.D., LL.M. Preliminary activities are not taken intoaccount. Examples of preliminary activities include: Not a subscriber? Sign up for a free trial or contact us for a representative.last_img read more

Paul Lee says Hotshots should be ready for Gin Kings

first_imgPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hosting Eduard Folayang focused on takedown defense for Shinya Aoki rematch Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. “We need to be ready, we need to prepare,” Lee said of their game against the Gin Kings, who improved to a 4-3 slate after a gritty stand against league-leading Phoenix Pulse.“I know that they want to exact revenge,” he added, pointing to Magnolia’s semifinal win that dethroned Ginebra in the previous Governors’ Cup. Lee also rued Magnolia’s shaky start into the conference, but said that the team’s focus sights now zero in on its remaining tasks.After the Gin Kings, the Hotshots will face the unpredictable NorthPort Batang Pier. Then, they proceed on taking on the current doormat Blackwater Elite, and the NLEX Road Warriors.“It’s a bummer,” he said of their 0-3 skid that opened the all-Filipino campaign. Magnolia narrowly lost to the Fuel Masters and the second-best team Rain or Shine Elasto Painters.ADVERTISEMENT SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte Hong Kong tunnel reopens, campus siege nears end But Lee, ever a cautious cager, says it won’t be easy considering the the caliber of the teams waiting for them as they push through with their elimination round campaign—especially the schedule just around the corner.“We’re always reminded that all of our wins would be for naught if we can’t pull through on the Sunday game,” Lee told reporters in Filipino shortly after a 109-83 decision over the Dyip in Araneta. FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSUrgent reply from Philippine ‍football chiefSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption chargesMagnolia faces Manila Clasico rival Barangay Ginebra this Sunday at the same venue. And a loss would put in peril the Hotshots’ bid for a comfortable place in the playoff round. Right now, Lee and the Hotshots sit on the Philippine Cup’s 7th spot with a 3-4 record. Their four last remaining games should propel them higher in the standings and could get them off the crosshairs of whoever secures the second spot, which will be enjoying a twice-to-beat incentive come quarterfinals. MOST READ Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss 1 dead, 3 injured in Quezon road crashcenter_img Trump campaign, GOP groups attack Google’s new ad policy LATEST STORIES P2.5 B shabu seized in Makati sting, Chinese national nabbed Urgent reply from Philippine ‍football chief Magnolia snared their second straight victory at the expense of Columbian on Wednesday night, and guard Paul Lee hopes this heralds good tidings for the Hotshots.ADVERTISEMENT Lacson backs proposal to elect president and vice president in tandem “The breaks of the game didn’t just go our way,” he said.“We just have to learn from all that. This is the situation now and we just have to be primed for whoever is up ahead.”But first things first: the showdown with the crowd darlings, which Lee knows by heart, is going to be “a battle.”Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next View commentslast_img read more

Tom Herman’s Wife Sets Twitter On Fire After Peach Bowl Win

first_imgTexas head coach tom herman watches during the sugar bowlNEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA – JANUARY 01: Head coach Tom Herman of the Texas Longhorns looks on during the second half of the Allstate Sugar Bowl against the Georgia Bulldogs at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome on January 01, 2019 in New Orleans, Louisiana. (Photo by Jonathan Bachman/Getty Images)Houston coach Tom Herman may be the hottest coaching commodity in the country after leading the Cougars to an upset victory over Florida State in the Peach Bowl on Thursday, but his wife Michelle might have attracted her own set of suitors after the contest. Michelle Herman’s Twitter mentions skyrocketed after she was shown live on ESPN.There are thousands of tweets – you can guess why.Mrs. Tom Herman pic.twitter.com/Pbm7G1dwCL— Busted Coverage (@bustedcoverage) December 31, 2015If Tom Herman’s wife cheated on me I would apologize to her pic.twitter.com/Ilk2BoL5w1— BMOC (@TailgateC9) December 31, 2015Tom Herman’s wife is proof he can recruit. Hubba hubba— Brandon #GoBucks (@fierybuckeye) December 31, 2015Y’all see Tom Herman’s wife? Lawd have mercy— Max Thompson (@itsmaxthompson) December 31, 2015Did @UHouston name their mascot after Head Coach Tom Herman’s wife? Daaang!!! #Cougars @ESPNCFB— Kacey Brown (@KaceBrown) December 31, 2015Tom Herman’s wife….straight up hottie.— Matt (@gatriguy) December 31, 2015Tom Herman’s wife. It’s fair to say the man is winning both on and off the field.— Donny (@DonnyTello50) December 31, 2015Lol Tom Herman’s wife finna break twitter. You guys make me laugh.— Chad (@ChadSpringer) December 31, 2015Life isn’t so bad for Tom Herman right now.last_img read more

Marenave in Promising Talks with Financing Banks

first_imgzoom German-based shipping trust Marenave Schiffahrts said that it has conducted “promising negotiations” with financing banks in order to avoid insolvency.The move comes less than a month after the company received notice from two banks financing the Marenave-fleet stating that Marenave’s restructuring concept, which has been negotiated so far, will not be supported.“Already at the beginning of this week some of the financing banks notified the company that they will support a restructuring concept outside insolvency,” Marenave informed.Additionally, the company said that it received further statements by the respective banks, according to which they will for a limited period of time seriously demand payment from the single ship companies of the amounts due under the respective ship financing loans only to the extent the respective single ship companies actually have the financial capacity to make such payments in light of their revenue situation and the liquidity accumulated until the relevant due dates.“At the same time Marenave shall not be held liable under the guarantees given for the respective ship financing loans,” the company added.Subsequently, the company has concluded that the positive going concern forecast is restored for the company and that all single ship companies are solvent.Marenave expects that “a paper with key issues for a restructuring agreement” between the company and some of the financing banks would be concluded until December 9, 2016.last_img read more