Archives: nexmcumgj

Elliott proposes sale of National Express assets

September 4, 2021 | By admin | No Comments | Filed in: nexmcumgj.

first_img whatsapp Show Comments ▼ Elliott proposes sale of National Express assets by Taboolaby TaboolaSponsored LinksSponsored LinksPromoted LinksPromoted LinksYou May LikeTotal PastThe Ingenious Reason There Are No Mosquitoes At Disney WorldTotal PastMisterStoryWoman Files For Divorce After Seeing This Photo – Can You See Why?MisterStoryBrake For ItThe Most Worthless Cars Ever MadeBrake For ItSerendipity TimesInside Coco Chanel’s Eerily Abandoned Mansion Frozen In TimeSerendipity TimesMoneyPailShe Was An Actress, Now She Works In ScottsdaleMoneyPailDrivepedia20 Of The Most Underrated Vintage CarsDrivepediaBetterBeDrones Capture Images No One Was Suppose to SeeBetterBeZen HeraldThe Truth About Why ’40s Actor John Wayne Didn’t Serve In WWII Has Come To LightZen HeraldLuxury SUVs | Search AdsThese Cars Are So Loaded It’s Hard to Believe They’re So CheapLuxury SUVs | Search Ads National Express’ biggest shareholder has proposed breaking up the company or merging it with a rival as it meets shareholders in London today.Elliott Advisors, the activist hedge fund that now owns 17.5 per cent of the transport group, said it supported either selling National Express assets to “natural owners” or to allow it to refocus the business on the US market.A third option would be merging National Express in its entirety with another group with strengths in the UK and US, it said in a detailed presentation directed to investors.In a sharp warning to the board, Elliott said it was proposing the options “not only to create value but also to avoid any further destruction of value” at the company.“The markets that National Express operates in are set to become even more competitive, and therefore it is critical that the board considers alternative strategic options to overcome this challenge now,” it said. It said the group’s assets were worth more separately than as a whole, and gave the first indication that a break-up may involve a sale of Spanish assets to second-largest investor the Cosmen family.It proposed a scenario where the Spanish bus and north American school bus divisions are sold to financial buyers while the UK bus and coach business was sold to trade buyers such as rival Stagecoach.“While Spain delivers attractive margins to National Express, it has historically been undervalued by public markets,” it said in the presentation.Sources close to National Express said it felt the proposals contained nothing new and was concerned the options presented were skewed towards a sale in the near future.A spokesman said National Express “fundamentally disagrees with Elliott’s strategic options which are focused on the short term and would not deliver the same value for shareholders as National Express’ existing long-term growth strategy. “The group is making good progress in its process to appoint additional independent non-executive directors, and believes Elliott’s attempts to appoint its own directors contravene good corporate governance.” Share Friday 15 April 2011 10:11 am whatsapp Tags: NULL alison.lock last_img read more

Tags: , , , , ,

Webinar: COVID-19’s impact on igaming – Strategic innovation key to success

August 24, 2021 | By admin | No Comments | Filed in: nexmcumgj.

first_img Email Address How do we change to get through this challenging time? How can we create the future?Today’s tech startup scene has reached a new level in terms of product diversity, opportunity and markets, so we’re putting our energy into category creation and building new breakthrough products, to not only advance our position and capabilities in the iGaming industry, but also across other business sectors too.Key takeaways from this webinar; Webinar: COVID-19’s impact on igaming – Strategic innovation key to success Uncategorized Insight into how COVID-19 impacted our business and how we reacted to it Why we apply the infinite game mindset to our business Learn about our short, medium and longer term strategy, including our new Tech Start-up Hub, Digitown Subscribe to the iGaming newsletter Join us on Thursday 28th May 2020 at 15:00 BST for our next webinar in collaboration with Digitain.center_img Topics: Uncategorized AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to FacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitter Join us on Thursday 28th May 2020 at 15:00 BST for our next webinar in collaboration with Digitain.There has always been a lack of material differentiation and innovation in iGaming. It’s no secret that most operators struggle to come up product innovations that really move the needle. The industry’s existing technology and mindset has always been a roadblock for creativity and that doesn’t look like changing anytime soon. Just look across it – everything looks the same.With the future of the sporting calendar uncertain due to COVID-19, innovating now is a real meaningful opportunity to boost competitiveness and drive consumer demand. However for those playing the finite game and competing against each other, of which there are many, they are likely to find themselves in survival mode, rather than reinvention mode. Here at Digitain, we’re asking ourselves two important questions; This webinar is sponsored by Digitain 14th May 2020 | By last_img read more

Tags: , , , ,

Deap Capital Management & Trust Plc ( 2014 Annual Report

July 12, 2021 | By admin | No Comments | Filed in: nexmcumgj.

first_imgDeap Capital Management & Trust Plc ( listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Financial sector has released it’s 2014 annual report.For more information about Deap Capital Management & Trust Plc ( reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Deap Capital Management & Trust Plc ( company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Deap Capital Management & Trust Plc (  2014 annual report.Company ProfileDeap Capital Management & Trust Plc is a financial  services institution in Nigeria operating in the capital market, mortgage banking and oil and gas sectors. The company provides services for fund management, portfolio management, capital market/financial advisory and issuing house services. Its branded financial services products include DEAP Standard, DEAP Gold, DEAP Platinum and DEAP Classic. Deep Capital Management & Trust Plc’s major subsidiaries include Resort Securities & Trust Limited, Resort Savings & Loans Limited and DVCF Oil & Gas PLC. The company’s head office is in Lagos, Nigeria. Deap Capital Management & Trust Plc is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchangelast_img read more

Tags: , , , ,

Arbico Plc ( 2017 Annual Report

July 12, 2021 | By admin | No Comments | Filed in: nexmcumgj.

first_imgArbico Plc ( listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Building & Associated sector has released it’s 2017 annual report.For more information about Arbico Plc ( reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Arbico Plc ( company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Arbico Plc (  2017 annual report.Company ProfileArbico Plc is a leading construction and civil engineering company in Nigeria responsible for building major residential, commercial, industrial and hospitality projects as well as key infrastructure projects. The company offers services such as pre-construction and estimating, design, build and project management as well as engineering, procurement and construction management services. Arbico Plc has been involved in the construction of major projects in Nigeria spanning residential, commercial, industrial and hospitality projects as well as a number of key infrastructure projects for the government of Nigeria. Flagship projects include residential projects such as No 7 Oniru in Lagos, Oba Elgushi residence in Lagos and SKA residence in Lagos; public assembly projects such as the Rose of Sharon Centre in Lagos; commercial projects such as Feyide House in Lagos and KAAF Building in Ogun State; hospitality projects such as Park Inn Hotel in Ogun State; industrial projects such as the Coleman Factory Development in Ogun State; and infrastructure projects such as NBC Asejire Plant in Oyo and the effluent/water treatment plant in Ogun State. Arbico Plc was founded in 1958 and is a subsidiary of R28 Limited. The company’s head office is in Lagos, Nigeria. Arbico Plc is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchangelast_img read more

Tags: , , , ,

Rierson-Salmons Cabin / Salmela Architect

June 17, 2021 | By admin | No Comments | Filed in: nexmcumgj.

first_img Area:  1372 ft² Area:  1372 ft² Year Completion year of this architecture project “COPY” photographs:  David GettyPhotographs:  David Getty+ 26 Share United States 2012 ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOr Clipboard Year:  Year:  Architects: Salmela Architect Area Area of this architecture project Rierson-Salmons Cabin / Salmela Architect CopyAbout this officeSalmela ArchitectOfficeFollow#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesTofteHousesUnited StatesPublished on November 02, 2013Cite: “Rierson-Salmons Cabin / Salmela Architect” 02 Nov 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021. ISSN 0719-8884Browse the CatalogPartitionsSkyfoldChoosing the Skyfold Wall for Your SpaceGlass3MGlass Finish – FASARA™ GeometricShower ColumnshansgroheShoulder ShowersPanels / Prefabricated AssembliesMorin Corp.Metal Wall Systems – ExposedStonesCosentinoSurfaces – Dekton® Stonika SeriesConcrete FloorsSikaIndustrial Floor CoatingsHanging LampsLouis PoulsenPendant Lights – KeglenDoorsSky-FrameInsulated Sliding Doors – Sky-Frame SlopeThermalSchöckMinimizing Thermal Bridges in BalconiesWindowspanoramah!®ah! Ultra MinimalistEnclosures / Double Skin FacadesAlucoilStructural Honeycomb Panels – LarcoreWork ChairsDynamobelWork Chair – SLAT 16More products »Save世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?是否翻译成中文现有为你所在地区特制的网站?想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?Take me there »✖You’ve started following your first account!Did you know?You’ll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my streamcenter_img CopySave this picture!© David GettyRecommended ProductsWindowsC.R. LaurenceCRL-U.S. Aluminum Unit-Glaze SystemEnclosures / Double Skin FacadesFranken-SchotterFacade System –  LINEAWindowsVitrocsaMinimalist Window – SlidingWoodParklex International S.L.Wood cladding – FacadeText description provided by the architects. Our clients expressed the desire to share the beauty of this north shore Minnesota site with extended family and friends. Hence a guesthouse on a granite cliff overlooking Lake Superior.Save this picture!© David GettyExisting foundations for a previous garage were used to locate the guesthouse such that it was within a short distance of the original cabin but both structures maintained unobstructed views. Additionally, the removal of a defunct wind generator had left a substantial exposed triangular concrete plinth providing the base for an outdoor masonry chimney and seating area cliff-side. Utilizing these foundations rather than employing typical excavation left the site as undisturbed as possible and the new chimney at the guest cabin references the shape of the existing plinth.Save this picture!© David GettyAt the guest cabin each of the levels has open gathering space as well as privacy for sleeping and bathing functions. The grade level accommodates the kitchen/living/dining room along with a bedroom, bath and mechanical room. The upper level consists of a gathering/game room, master bedroom, bath and sauna. This extends to the loft level with the paved roof as a gathering space. The sauna experience is enhanced as one moves from the steam room to the roof terrace. The loft’s high skylight not only allows contemplation of the night sky but also creates effective stack ventilation in the summer, cooling the cabin.Save this picture!© David GettyMultiple levels create vantage points allowing guests to experience the dramatic site from different elevations and directions and under changing light conditions. Full-height windows ensure that the “ground” outside feels connected to the interior. The main level windows seem to rest on the exterior decks, the upper level windows rest on the green roof terrace, and the loft level’s fully-glazed door opening onto the roof terrace.Save this picture!© David GettyAll materials were selected to age with dignity. The smoothness of the maintenance-free black exterior cladding contrasts with the whitewashed masonry texture and naturally-aging wood surfaces. The consistency of minimal-maintenance materi- als continues on the interior with fir and birch surfaces. In addition to the visual warmth, the cabin is designed for superior thermal comfort with minimal energy use through the use of super-insulated walls, triple-glazed high performance windows and thermal-bridge-free insulation details for the floors above the existing foundation. The new garage is designed to act as structure and armature for future solar panels.Save this picture!PlanProject gallerySee allShow lessA Walking City for the 21st CenturyArchitecture NewsMuseu Brasileiro de Escultura (MuBE) / Paulo Mendes da RochaArticles Share ArchDaily “COPY” 2012 Rierson-Salmons Cabin / Salmela ArchitectSave this projectSaveRierson-Salmons Cabin / Salmela ArchitectSave this picture!© David GettyHouses•Tofte, United States Photographs ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOr Clipboard Projects Houseslast_img read more

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

WWP candidate: ‘Elections are rigged on behalf of billionaire ruling class’

June 15, 2021 | By admin | No Comments | Filed in: nexmcumgj.

first_imgThe following abridged remarks were made by Workers World Party 2016 presidential candidate Monica Moorehead on Oct. 19 in response to the third presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The remarks, recorded on a Facebook Live webinar broadcast, have been viewed by more than 3,400 people as of Oct. 23. Go to “Facebook/monica moorehead lamont lilly 2016” to see the full talk. Sisters and brothers, on behalf of my vice presidential running mate, Lamont Lilly, and our organization, Workers World Party, I am grateful for the opportunity to address you for several minutes following the last presidential debate, not because this debate or the previous two debates had any kind of real substance to them but to take advantage of the occasion of these debates to reiterate some important points many of you already know.The racist, misogynistic Donald Trump has claimed that the elections are rigged on behalf of the Democratic Party. But the large drop in his poll numbers is in response to the most recent scandal involving the 2005 videotape, exposing his nauseating degradation of women of all ages. To say that Trump is guilty of sexual assault, along with his racist and fascistic views, is truly an understatement.Trump once again targets “illegal immigrants” as the root cause for voter fraud, along with African-American voters, a growing number of them disenfranchised, and along with other people of color. But let’s be clear that voter fraud doesn’t come from the people but from the capitalist system itself.Therefore, Workers World Party does agree with Trump that these elections are rigged, but not for the reasons he espouses. These elections are rigged on behalf of himself as a billionaire and the billionaire ruling class that he represents, just as these elections are rigged on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the billionaire class that she represents — especially her Wall Street backers and the Pentagon and its allies, especially NATO, which seeks to enslave the workers and oppressed of the world along with their resources all for the sake of making profits. Just ask the people of Libya and Honduras, who have had their sovereignty violently taken away from them. It was in the process of being taking away from them when Clinton was secretary of state. And now Clinton has set her sights on a possible war with the Putin government in Russia, which is assisting in defending the Syrian government against U.S.-NATO attacks. I guess having a counterrevolution in the former Soviet Union just wasn’t enough.These elections are rigged to keep the ruling-class parties, the Republicans and Democrats, in power by giving the false notion that every four years these elections are all about defending democracy for the majority. In reality it is really a democracy for the superrich, a tiny minority.Obama, in answering Trump yesterday, stated, “Trump’s warnings could abrade faith in the U.S. political system. One way of weakening America and making it less great is if you start betraying those basic American traditions that have been bipartisan and have helped to hold together this democracy now for well over two centuries.”How ironic and hypocritical for Obama to make such a statement, being the first Black president after all white male presidents, some of them slave owners and KKK sympathizers. During his eight years as president, there have been more deportations of immigrants — at least 2 million — and more police murders of Black, Brown and Indigenous people than during any other presidency, as well as mass shootings involving a growing number of alienated people.As Colin Kaepernick, the courageous quarterback, stated early on — and we concur — these debates are “embarrassing” and boil down to Trump and Clinton trying to outdo themselves to appear less racist. Let’s not forget that Clinton once called Black youth “superpredators” and that Trump called for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, Black youth falsely accused of rape in the 1980s who have since been exonerated. And let’s be clear that Clinton has never been a champion of women’s rights.Yes, these elections are rigged: against every person of color who is being targeted by police violence and mass incarceration; every worker fighting for a living wage and decent benefits, like in the current heroic strike of the Harvard University Dining Services workers, the majority of them immigrants; every woman facing humiliating objectification; every LGBTQ person facing bigotry, like those in North Carolina under the heinous HB2 bill; every student facing tens of thousands of dollars of student debt; every family fighting for decent housing, medical care, education; people fighting for clean water from Standing Rock, N.D., to Flint, Michigan; for healthy food; a solution to climate change, and an end to occupation and war.These important struggles and issues, and many more, are not being raised by Trump, Clinton or the big business parties they represent — unless they are forced to talk about them. But these are the very issues that Workers World Party is raising because we say that the entire capitalist system is rigged against workers and oppressed peoples here and around the world. We say that these elections are rigged against third-party candidates, be they Lamont Lilly and myself, Jill Stein, Gloria LaRiva or others. Why are we being kept out of these debates? Why are we being silenced from raising issues that impact poor and working people everywhere? What are CNN, MSNBC and the other big business networks so afraid of when it comes to revolutionary and progressive third party candidates like Workers World Party having equal time in these debates?I think that it is fairly obvious that the big business media are so afraid of letting millions of people hear a message of independent mass organizing and fightback. They are afraid of any third party candidate sending a message loud and clear of not allowing our movements to be subservient to the Democratic Party, which sets back our movements as history has shown. They are afraid of any third party candidate that states loud and clear that the fight against racism and white supremacy is central to every single oppression in this country, as the Black Lives Matter Uprising has shown. And lastly, they are afraid of the clarion call for real solidarity for people who need it the most — especially those facing racist repression because of who they are, be they Black, Brown, Indigenous, Muslim, Arab, Asian, immigrant, etc.Lastly, I want to raise the current economic crisis with the political crisis, which connects all of these issues. There was a poll taken in October 2015 by Marketplace, which claims to have taken the first nationwide economic survey, stating that 39 percent of “Americans” are losing sleep over their finances. Of course, we have to assume that this number is even higher since you can be certain that undocumented workers and millions of disenfranchised people, including low-wage workers, were not counted. The poll report went on to say that “more Americans are increasingly worried about losing their jobs, the ability to pay their mortgage or rent and saving for retirement. Thirty percent of Americans are very fearful that they will lose their job in the next six months, up from 10 percent a year ago.”Sisters and brothers, the permanency of this worldwide economic crisis is at the heart of the police war on Black and Brown people, who are becoming more and more expendable because there are fewer and fewer jobs being created, along with massive cutbacks in services, which will certainly lead to more and more alienation and suffering. Our youth want to be unionized, not brutalized by police terror.There is a lot more to say about the economic crisis, which will become even more devastating on a worldwide scale following the elections. All the signs are there. These are the very issues consciously not being raised by the Democrats and Republicans, because they know that an even worse crisis is coming than the one in 2007-2008. They know that capitalism is at a dead end and cannot be reformed. This election, like all U.S. elections, boils down to which Democrat or Republican can best administer the capitalist state by making more acceptable deeper economic and political attacks on all workers, starting with the most oppressed.So sisters and brothers, I know that so many of us are just counting the days when this horrific sham of an election is over, but the work will just be beginning. It doesn’t matter who gets into the White House, because none of the growing dire conditions are going to fundamentally change for the better for the workers and oppressed here and worldwide. We must take our organizing and mobilizing to an even higher level. We not only must be ready to defend any spontaneous rebellions sparked by police murder, just as we have done in Charlotte, Baltimore or Milwaukee, but we must also go on the offensive to unite as many forces as we can, regardless of any political differences and geography, to fight for principles of unity on an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist basis. That is the role of a party that is fighting for revolutionary socialism, to rid this earth of institutionalized racism, sexism, LGBTQ oppression and all forms of inequality in order to meet all human needs.This message will be a major theme of our upcoming Party conference Nov. 11-13 at the Shabazz Center in New York City, because we know in our bones and from our study of history that you can’t vote away racism, you can’t vote away war or any form of inequality. You can vote for our candidates by ballot in New Jersey, Wisconsin and Utah and with many state write-in campaigns, along with online petitions, because our campaign is a protest campaign against the entire capitalist system. Go to for more information.So thank you for your time this evening and I especially want to thank all of our supporters on social media and in the streets for showing our election campaign so much love and energy. Black Lives Matter! Long Live International Solidarity!FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thislast_img read more

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

USDA to Invest $56 Million in 2020 to Help Farmers Improve…

June 14, 2021 | By admin | No Comments | Filed in: nexmcumgj.

first_img SHARE SHARE The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will invest $56 million this year to help agricultural producers improve water quality in more than 300 high-priority watersheds across the country. USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is continuing two of its successful landscape-level water quality efforts, the Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI) and National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI).“We’ve learned that when we partner with producers to deliver conservation practices to critical watersheds, we see a positive impact,” said NRCS Chief Matthew Lohr, who made the announcement at the Hypoxia Task Force meeting today. “Through these partnerships we maximize the delivery of our conservation efforts which yields greater results to water quality and benefits the public, our natural resources and farmers’ bottom lines.”NRCS launched MRBI in 2009, focusing on watersheds in the Mississippi River Basin, then took the concept nationwide in 2012 with the launch of NWQI. Since then, priority watersheds across the country have seen improvements, including the delisting of once impaired streams.Through these initiatives, NRCS offers technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to implement practices that avoid, control and trap nutrients and sediment, which in high quantities negatively impact water quality. Practices include filter strips, cover crops and manure management, which promote soil health, reduce erosion and lesson nutrient runoff.NRCS has strengthened focus on watershed assessment and partner engagement in priority small watersheds in fiscal 2020. NRCS will soon solicit state partners for new MRBI and NWQI watersheds and source water protection areas for fiscal 2021. See NRCS website for a list of the watersheds for MRBI and for NWQI.Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds InitiativeThis year, NRCS will make available $17.5 million to producers in 13 states: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin.MRBI supports each state’s nutrient loss reduction strategy with overall goals of improving water quality, restoring wetlands and enhancing wildlife habitat while ensuring economic viability of agricultural lands along the nation’s largest river. The nation’s largest hypoxic zone, or low-oxygen area, sits at the mouth of the Mississippi River.Since its launch, MRBI has:Helped producers implement conservation on nearly 1.5 million acresReduced sediment loss by 2.1 million tonsReduced phosphorous loss by 4.1 million poundsReduced nitrogen loss by 16 million pounds.National Water Quality InitiativeAdditionally, NRCS will make available $38.9 million this year through NWQI. The Initiative is a partnership among NRCS, state water quality agencies and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to identify and address impaired water bodies through voluntary conservation. Through the Initiative, NRCS provides targeted funding for financial and technical assistance in small watersheds most in need and where farmers can use conservation practices to address impaired surface water. In 2019, NWQI was expanded to include protection of both surface and ground sources of drinking water.Water quality is improving in NWQI watersheds. State water quality agency partners report that 27% of NWQI monitoring watersheds show an improvement in water quality in at least one of the NWQI-monitored pollutants (based on 2016 data). Further, 81% of these improvements can be attributed to or associated with agricultural conservation practices implemented by farmers and ranchers.Since its launch, NWQI has:Helped producers implement conservation on 825,000 acresReduced sediment loss by 850,000 tonsReduced phosphorous loss by 2 million poundsReduced nitrogen loss by 9.6 million poundsParticipating in MRBI and NWQINRCS accepts applications for conservation programs year-round, but applications are ranked and funded by enrollment periods that are set locally. Producers interested in technical and financial assistance should contact their local NRCS field office. USDA to Invest $56 Million in 2020 to Help Farmers Improve Water Quality Home Indiana Agriculture News USDA to Invest $56 Million in 2020 to Help Farmers Improve Water… By USDA Communications – Feb 9, 2020 Facebook Twitter Previous articlePOET’s Jeff Broin Named The American Biofuels Visionary by Growth EnergyNext articleHoosier Voyles Elected to Cattlemen’s Beef Board Officer Team USDA Communications Facebook Twitterlast_img read more

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Charity supporters become charity clients

June 4, 2021 | By admin | No Comments | Filed in: nexmcumgj.

first_imgNewsLocal NewsCharity supporters become charity clientsBy admin – January 5, 2012 523 GENEROUS benefactors who had once been first to put their hands in their pockets to support good causes, are now forced to turn to those same charities for help with putting food on the table.Both the Vincent de Paul and the Shannon Lions club found themselves at the homes of former contributors this Christmas. But instead of collecting a cheque, they were bringing one.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up “People are embarrassed by this. But we always say to them that we’re delighted to be able to help after their having previously supported us,” VdeP regional president, Michael Murphy, told the Limerick Post.According to Mr Murphy, those who were self employed are among the hardest hit.“These are the people who would always have been so generous, making contributions at Christmas and other times. When their business fails, they have no social welfare to resort to, and a lot of people are in that boat because during the Celtic Tiger years, there were so many who set up in business for themselves”.Cllr Tony McMahon is president of the Shannon Lions club and says this is a phenomena which his organisation has encountered.“There are people who were contributors, some of them now in need of our assistance and we do what we can for everyone who needs us, but we couldn’t possibly meet the enormous need out there”.The organisation has particularly noticed an upsurge in requests for help with heating bills and fuel bills, and it’s getting more difficult to meet all of the requests for help.“We certainly want to thank everyone who supported us but, in the coming years, I think I will have to be recommending to our organisation that we must reduce the base of people we will help”.This Christmas, Vincent de Paul brought seasonal cheer to a massive 2,000 families in the region, a large increase on previous years.Back to Mr Murphy: “The big corporate sponsorship has dried up but we continue to be amazed and humbled by how generous ordinary people are when we have an appeal”. Linkedin Advertisement Previous articleThreat to council servicesNext articleNew signings for Limerick FC admin Facebookcenter_img WhatsApp Email Print Twitterlast_img read more

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From Anvar To Arjun – A Tale Of Two ‘Anys’ & Other Stories

May 26, 2021 | By admin | No Comments | Filed in: nexmcumgj.

first_imgColumnsFrom Anvar To Arjun – A Tale Of Two ‘Anys’ & Other Stories N. S. Nappinai24 May 2020 9:15 PMShare This – xA statute, as is well known, must be construed having regard to parliamentary intent. For the said purpose it is open to a court not only to take into consideration the history of the legislation including the mischief sought to be remedied but also the objects and purpose it seeks to achieve. – Tata Power Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Energy LtdIn Arjun Panditrao Khotkar V. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal[1], a two-judge bench of India’s Supreme Court made the following reference: “3. We are of the considered opinion that in view of Anvar P.V. (supra), the pronouncement of this Court in Shafhi Mohammad (supra) needs reconsideration. With the passage of time, reliance on electronic records during investigation is bound…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?LoginIn Arjun Panditrao Khotkar V. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal[1], a two-judge bench of India’s Supreme Court made the following reference: “3. We are of the considered opinion that in view of Anvar P.V. (supra), the pronouncement of this Court in Shafhi Mohammad (supra) needs reconsideration. With the passage of time, reliance on electronic records during investigation is bound to increase. The law therefore needs to be laid down in this regard with certainty. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to refer this matter to a larger Bench. Needless to say that there is an element of urgency in the matter.” The cases referred to in this order are those in Anvar P. K v. Basheer[2], which interpreted Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”) and overruled the two – judge decision in State v. Navjot Sandhu[3]; the second case forming part of the reference is a two-judge decision in Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh[4]. Tracing the trail from its beginnings[5], in Navjot Sandhu’s case, the Supreme Court held compliance with the process of submitting a certificate under Section 65B(4) to be discretionary and permitted reliance to prove secondary evidence even with respect to electronic records, on Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. In Anvar, a three – judge bench overruled the decision in Navjot Sandhu’s case and held that the special provisions under Sections 65A and 65B held primacy over the general provisions and that secondary evidence with respect to electronic records therefore required compliance with the above special provisions. This special compliance is captured through the submission of a certificate in compliance with Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act, which Anvar interpreted to include compliance with ALL three categories covered under sub-clauses (a) to (c) of Section 65B(4) Evidence Act. Not just that, whist setting out the conditions that the certificate ought to comply with, Anvar also held that ALL sub-provisions under Section 65B(2) ought to be complied with. In short Anvar mandated that a certificate under Section 65B(4) would advert to the details mandated under Section 65B(4)(a) to (c) and that with Section 65B(4) (c) pertaining to Section 65B(2), that it would also include all details sought under Section 65B(2)(a) to (d) and not just any of them. The Shafhi order sought to ease this burden by interpreting Anvar to apply only to those documents, which are within the custody of the deponent and carved out an exception that in the event of production of secondary evidence of electronic records in the custody of third parties, the deponent could rely on Sections 63 and 65 Evidence Act. This was however totally at the discretion of the trial court. Neither Anvar nor Shafhi delved nor elaborately interpreted the entirety of the provisions under Section 65B Evidence Act. None of these decisions also took into account the etymology of the inclusion of these provisions under the Schedule to the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”)[6] and the statement of objects and reasons, in the IT Act of 2000, which appears to have substantially driven the structure of Section 65B Evidence Act. It is now open for Arjun to deal with such interpretation in depth and to capture legislative intent to ensure certainty. In fact it is a necessity that the Supreme Court puts the opportunity that the Arjun reference has placed before it to ensure certainty not only in the interpretation of the above provisions but also to lay down clearly the mode and manner of proof of electronic records. Such certainty, as the reference mandated is the need of the hour for better reliance on electronic records in legal proceedings in India. Scope of Reference & Need for a Larger Bench Arjun Panditrao reference has been taken up for hearings by a three-judge bench and submissions were heard. The assumption that the reference was only with respect to the sustainability of Shafhi decision may have led to the reference being heard by a three-judge bench, which is patently fallacious. The very reference is in two parts, the first refers to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anvar and Shafhi. However, the true import of the reference clearly lies in the portion that highlights the need for ‘certainty’ in law, in the light of increasing reliance on electronic. This certainty can and would arise only if the reference is decided by a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court, so that the correctness of Anvar may also be decided finally, including its interpretation of the extent that the special provisions override the general. To limit the present reference to a 3-judge bench presumes the correctness of Anvar, which may in itself be fallacious, for the crux of the reference is a definitive decision on (i) the applicability of the mandatory certificate for proving copies of all electronic records; (ii) the conditions to be complied with in such certificate and also (iii) whether any limitation may be read into the need for the certificate only to those in the custody of the deponent or for all electronic records. To decide the above may take the court into revising Navjot Sandhu’s decision and its overruling, which then clearly falls beyond the mandate of a three-judge bench. The certainty, that the Arjun Panditrao reference mandates needs to decide beyond just Shafhi Mohammad and hence it is imperative that this certainty is achieved through a decision interpreting all aspects, pertaining to Section 65B Evidence Act including the above by a larger five – judge bench. Importance of the Statement of Objects & Reasons To evaluate the parliamentary intent behind Sections 65A & 65B Evidence Act, it is imperative, as espoused by the Supreme Court in Tata Power Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Energy Ltd.,[7] and Utkal Contractors and Joinery Pvt., Ltd., v. State of Orissa[8] to consider the Statement of Objects and reasons under the IT Act of 2000, as it was under the Second Schedule of the IT Act, 2000 that the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 was amended to include the above provisions under consideration. The limited scope under the said enactment was to provide legal recognition for eCommerce transactions. The Objects and Reasons also records the adaptation of the UNCITRAL[9] Model Law on Electronic Commerce[10], which India was also required to give favorable consideration of to ensure harmonious adaptation of laws pertaining to eCommerce across signatory Nations. The amendments brought into the Indian Evidence Act pursuant to the IT Act appears to have had similar focus on eCommerce, which is also reflected in the wordings of Sections 65A & 65B Evidence Act. It is therefore imperative to interpret and apply the said provisions The Tale of Two Anys – Interpreting Sections 65A & 65B Evidence Act Keeping in mind the cardinal principal of law that “every law is designed to further the ends of justice but not to frustrate on the mere technicalities”[11] (emphasis supplied), it is imperative that the essence, intent and purpose behind Section 65B Evidence Act is evaluated, for Section 65A merely acts as a signpost, directing those intending to rely on electronic records to comply with the provisions of Section 65B Evidence Act. Taking Section 65B Evidence Act in its entirety, that which is apparent is that Section 65B(4) is the primary objective of parliament, that is intended to be completed for copies[12] or ‘computer outputs’ (as defined in the said provision) of electronic records, to be taken on record. For all other provisions of Section 65B merely provide guidance and facilitate compliance of Section 65B(4) Evidence Act. The intent and purpose of Section 65B in itself appears to be to lower the threshold for acceptance of secondary evidence with respect to electronic records and not to complicate it further. This is evident from the dispensing with of the procedures mandated under Section 66 Evidence Act. Else between Section 63 and 65, as was noted in Navjot Sandhu’s case, the provisions contained therein would have covered electronic records also, as they would fall within the category of “copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies” under Section 63(2) Evidence Act, as also Section 65(d) i.e., “when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable”, which appears to be one reason to provide special provisions for facilitating production of secondary evidence of electronic records. The wording at the commencement of Section 65B(2) read with Section 65B(1) is misleading, and may lend itself to assume that the focus of the provision and the threshold of proof is only as is set out in Section 65B(2). For in Section 65B(1), it is stated that for a copy of an electronic record to be ‘deemed to be also a document’, ‘conditions mentioned in this section’ have to be satisfied ‘in relation to the information and computer in question’ and Section 65B(2) states that the “conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be” that which is set out therein. However, with Section 65B(4) setting out the mode and manner of compliance with the conditions, the claim under Section 65B(2) Evidence Act stands diluted and a harmonious reading of both provisions clearly demonstrate that the primary provision for proving of secondary evidence with respect to electronic records is that which is set out at Section 65B(4) Evidence Act and that Section 65B(2) is one mode of proof for taking on record copies of electronic records or computer outputs. It would also be erroneous to assume that the contents of Section 65B(4) (a) and (b) are merely reproductions of the four conditions under Section 65B(2) Evidence Act. Cutting through the jargon of the latter, it is apparent that whilst Section 65B(4)(a) and (b) mandate the requirement of a certificate doing any of the following…”(emphasis supplied) i.e., (a) identifying the doc (electronic record) and how it was produced; or (b) give details of the device used to produce the electronic record to show it is produced by a computer; Against this the last requirement under Section 65B(4)(c) requires the certificate to deal with “any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate” (emphasis supplied). Under Section 65B(2) also the conditions are not listed, as a conspectus of ALL conditions but only of any one of the first three and the certainty of the fourth. This is apparent from a quick look at the sub-sections of Section 65B(2), which seeks, (a) that the computer output (i.e., copies of electronic records) -was produced by the computer;-that during the period-the computer was used regularly to store or process information-for the purposes of any activities regularly carried-by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (c) that:during the said period, information in the electronic record or from which the information is derivedwas regularly fed into the computerin the ordinary course of the said activities; that during the material part of the said periodthe computer was operating properly (or, if not)for such period when it was not operating properly or was out of operationit did not affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; AND(d) the information in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. The only sub-provision using the conjunctive “and” is after sub-provision (c), which again appears to indicate parliamentary intent to be for (a) to (c) to be any one of the conditions with (d) being mandatory. The provision, as a whole has inter-dependence in interpretation but not necessarily application. For, phrases such as “period” and “activities” relate to the earlier provisions. Further Sub-section (b) of Section 65B(2) is in effect repeated at sub-section (d) of Section 65B(2). The purpose of the repetition at best can be interpreted to make Section 65B(2)(d) mandatory, when any one of the other provisions of Section 65B(2)(a) to (c) are relied on in the certificate under Section 65B(4). With respect to the similarity between Section 65B(4)(a) and (b) with those under Section 65B(2) Evidence Act, it is apparent that the option of Section 65B(4)(a) is much wider than any other option and is not covered under any of the other conditions. Further the distinction between that under Section 65B(4)(b) and those under Section 65B(2)(a) stops with the proof of the electronic record being generated by a computer. All other conditions of it being used regularly, of the information stored and processed being in ordinary course of business or activities and of the same being done by the person in lawful control over the computer are NOT part of Section 65B(4)(b) Evidence Act. These distinctions are imperative, as the certificate is warranted in cases, where the electronic record may be in the custody of the person producing the same; or in third party custody (which is what Shafhi decision tried to address); or in criminal cases may relate to documents in the custody of the accused, who is certainly not going to give any certificate affirming either the contents or accuracy. It is also important to take Section 65B(4) in its entirety to reach the correct conclusion i.e., that each of its sub – provisions are independent of each other. The certificate mandated is required to be given by the person in responsible official position qua “…the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate)…” (emphasis supplied). This delineation between device and activities also emphasizes the need for each of the sub-sections of Section 65B(4) Evidence Act to be read independent of each other and not clubbed together as a whole. For under Section 65B(4)(a) and (b), it would suffice for any person who is producing a document to identify the document or device as the case may be and it is only under Section 65B(2) in some instances that activities may dictate the person who will give the certificate and also the details that such certificate will be required to set out. The lower threshold has also been set keeping in mind that the process merely facilitates submission of secondary evidence of the electronic record to prove its integrity and authenticity i.e., that the contents have not been tampered and not to prove the truth of the contents, which, as with any other record will have to be proven separately. Further, both “anys” used in the above provision cannot and ought not to be interpreted in similar fashion. The first ‘any’ in Section 65B(4) Evidence Act would be required to be interpreted independent of the second ‘any’ with respect to the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Even if the latter were to be interpreted as ‘all’ and in fact more so if that is the case, the first ‘any’ would necessarily be required to be interpreted as ‘any’ giving the deponent relying on secondary evidence of an electronic record to set out any one of the conditions set out at Section 65B(4) Evidence Act. To do otherwise will otherwise by relying on the last part of Section 65B(4) i.e., that a person only has to aver to the “best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it” will make the very certificate a dead letter, which will serve no useful purpose, as was noted by the UK Law Commission whilst repealing Section 69 of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act, 1984[13]. An attempt to therefore assume similarity between Section 65B(4)(a) and (b) with those conditions under Section 65B(2) would lead not only to erroneous interpretation but will frustrate the very purpose of legislature providing or attempting to provide a lower threshold for reliance on electronic records in legal proceedings. Way forward for Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao For Arjun Panditrao reference to produce the desired results of certainty, it is imperative that the Supreme Court firstly, refers the case to a larger bench, for any decision that will afford certainty and ensure effective enforcement of parliamentary intent would be achieved only if the decision in Anvar is reviewed. Interpret Section 65B in Entirety & Addressing All Issues beyond ‘Any’: Further, it may be fallacious for the Supreme Court to narrow its perspective to interpreting Section 65B Evidence Act in literal sense by taking phrases or wording in isolation. With legislative intent being manifest from the objects and reasons i.e., to facilitate eCommerce, it is imperative that the Supreme Court takes up all issues pertaining to the interpretation of Section 65B Evidence Act in its entirety. Whilst doing so, one option before the Supreme Court is to give a detailed interpretation of the conditions applicable AND also clarify the mode and manner in which such conditions may be complied with in civil and Criminal cases, including (i). form of such certificate; (ii). conditions or details to be set out in the certificate; (iii). persons, who may give such certificate; (iv). need for such person to be examined before Court; (v). stage when such certificate may be given; (vi). when is such certificate required i.e., when copies are furnished; and (vii). what does such certificate prove i.e., that proof of ‘contents of documents’ does not mean proof of the truth of such contents. It would also be imperative for the Supreme Court to interpret the definitions of “relevant device” and “relevant activities” at Section 65B(4) Evidence Act, as the fixing of the person in charge, will be guided by the device concerned or activities involved. In all judgments of the various High Courts, the importance of the latter i.e., of the ‘activities’ has been disregarded. It is also important for the Supreme Court to decide on various phrases used in Section 65B(2) including ‘during the said period’; ‘used regularly’ or ‘regularly fed’; ‘activities regularly carried on’; ‘person having lawful control’; ‘operating properly’; ‘affect the electronic record’ or ‘accuracy of its contents’. It is also imperative that the Supreme Court reads and interprets harmoniously the provisions mostly repeated in Section 65B(2)(b) and (d) and finally to interpret the legislative intent of using the conjunctive ‘and’ only for (d) of Section 65B(2) Evidence Act. Whilst interpreting these phrases, it would be imperative for the Supreme Court to keep in mind its applicability to civil and criminal cases, including those where the information in an electronic record sought to be relied on may refer to modifications and tampering of such records, which neither fall within ordinary course of business or activities or in regular use or by persons in lawful control. Further such acts also result in tampering and modifying content on the electronic resource and this is one further reason to hold the interpretation that ALL conditions of Section 65B(4) Evidence Act would be applicable, patently erroneous. Some arguments that Navjot Sandhu relied on i.e., that “desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section” may be interpreted to mean that Section 65B(4) was only optional and not mandatory and that it is open to the deponent to either comply with the lower threshold of Section 65B(4) or of Sections 63 and 65 of Evidence Act have been revisited in discussions. Whilst this may seem untenable, considering that the legislative intent in using ‘desired’ may refer to the use of secondary evidence instead of primary evidence, it may still be relevant to revisit this issue to ensure finality. The need for special provisions is emphasized actually by two sub-sections of Section 65B, which are barely discussed i.e., Section 65B(3) and (5), which ensure that copies from any electronic record forming part of even a link in the chain of custody, may be produced (Section 65B(3)) and for the modes and means of information or activities pertaining to electronic records becoming relevant facts and also the mode of creating such copies (Section 65B(5)). Whilst interpreting the intent of legislature therefore it is imperative that the Supreme Court takes into account that the above provisions were also intended to meet the ends of justice and technical interpretations should not frustrate such intent. In doing so, as was pointed out by the Supreme Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan[14], literal and grammatical interpretations may not lead to the correct intent of legislature and “in interpreting a statute in its true spirit, the right direction should be to give a full and literal meaning to the language aiming ever to show fidelity to the meaningful purpose of the statute and never to make it sterile and impotent by giving a strict literal interpretation putting blinkers for judicial approach; because such interpretation will run counter to the legislative intent.” In the words of the Supreme Court, in the above decision: “True, normally courts should be slow to pronounce the legislature to have been mistaken in its constantly manifested opinion upon a matter resting wholly within its will and take its plain ordinary grammatical meaning of the words of the enactment as affording the best guide, but to winch up the legislative intent, it is permissible for courts to take into account of the ostensible purpose and object and the real legislative intent. Otherwise, a bare mechanical interpretation of the words and application of the legislative intent devoid of concept of purpose and object will render the legislature inane.” “Though the function of the courts is only to expound the law and not to legislate, nonetheless the legislature cannot be asked to sit to resolve the difficulties in the implementation of its intention and the spirit of the law. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the court to mould or creatively interpret the legislation by liberally interpreting the statute.” Finally, as was pointed out in the above decision, “it is permissible for courts to have functional approaches and look into the legislative intention and sometimes it may be even necessary to go behind the words and enactment and take other factors into consideration to give effect to the legislative intention and to the purpose and spirit of the enactment so that no absurdity or practical inconvenience may result and the legislative exercise and its scope and object may not become futile.” Is It Time to Discard Sections 65A 7 65B Evidence Act? One further alternative that needs to be addressed is to strike down or through legislative intervention amend Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to delete Sections 65A & 65B, as was done by UK in the parent Act from which thee provisions were drawn. The very provision was enacted with a very narrow scope in mind i.e., for “legal recognition for transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as “electronic commerce”, which involve the use of alternatives to paper-based methods of communication and storage of information, to facilitate electronic filing of documents with the Government agencies”, which is no longer applicable in the light of further developments in law and technology. Continuation of the above provisions, in the manner in which the same have been drafted is bound to frustrate the intent behind the very provisions and hence it is imperative for a decision on its continued existence. However, until such eventuality, it is imperative that a holistic approach is taken to the provisions and their applicability and compliance, to ensure that no legal proceedings, civil or criminal are frustrated due to unworkable methodologies or narrow interpretations.  N. S. Nappinai, Advocate, Supreme Court & Founder – Cyber Saathi. Views are personal. [1] (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1553; [2] (2014) 10 SCC 473; [3](2005) 11 SCC 600 (overruled); [4] ((2018) 2 SCC 801); [5] Refer Nappinai. N. S. (2017). Technology Laws Decoded. Published by LexisNexis; and “Electronic Evidence – The Great Indian Quagmire” at (2019) 3 SCC J-41 for more details on the trail of cases from Navjot Sandhu to Arjun Panditrao and for detailed inputs on other aspects of Section 65B Indian Evidence Act including the mode and manner of proof of electronic records; [6] W.E.F June 9, 2000; This enactment was amended in December 2008, which amendmnts were w.e.f October 27, 2009; [7] Supra; [8] (1987) 3 SCC 279: 1987 AIR 1454; This view is also affirmed in Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co., Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC 424; [9] UNCITRAL: ‘United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’; [10] Adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on January 30, 1997 [11] Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 785; [12] That this provision is applicable only to copies is evident from the opening statements in the said provision itself i.e., “…any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output)…” (emphasis supplied). [13] Refer the more detailed analysis in “Electronic Evidence – The Great Indian Quagmire” by N. S. Nappinai ((2019) 3 SCC J-41) and also the updated Research paper on Electronic Evidence at; [14] (1994) 3 SCC 440 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 785; Next Storylast_img read more

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

USS Somerset Commissioned

May 4, 2021 | By admin | No Comments | Filed in: nexmcumgj.

first_img View post tag: Naval March 2, 2014 Back to overview,Home naval-today USS Somerset Commissioned View post tag: Navy View post tag: Commissioned Share this article View post tag: News by topic Training & Education View post tag: Somerset USS Somerset Commissioned USS SOMERSET LPD 25USS Somerset (LPD 25), the Navy’s newest amphibious transport dock ship, commissioned during a formal ceremony at Penn’s Landing in Philadelphia, March 1. View post tag: USS USS Somerset represents the heroic actions of the 40 crew and passengers of United Flight 93, honoring their collective sacrifice and the tremendous courage displayed in the face of overwhelming adversity. Had it not been for their brave actions, the terrorists would have likely reached their intended target and countless more lives may have been lost.Thousands of guests, including military veterans and family and friends of the crew, witnessed the ship coming to life and enter the naval service. Distinguished guests included the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Adm. Jonathan Greenert and the Honorable Pat Toomey – United States Senator, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James F. Amos, delivered the principal address and spoke of the ship and employment to the nation.“Somerset is a welcomed edition to the Fleet, make no mistake, this vessel along with the other San Antonio Class Amphibious ships represent America’s commitment to security around the world,” said Amos. “When this ship sails the worlds oceans, she will carry the spirit and determination and the fighting spirit that has always defined America.”Somerset’s commanding officer, Capt. Thomas L. Dearbon, spoke of her crew and her namesake’s heroic actions.“We are here today to not only honor and pay tribute to the heroes of United Flight 93, but also to celebrate the commissioning of this great ship USS Somerset,” said Dearborn. “Somerset will leave a legacy that will never be forgotten by those wishing to do harm to this country. A ship is but a steel vessel, it is the crew that brings the ship to life. USS Somerset is truly a fine warship and the crew that mans her, is second to none.”At the conclusion of the remarks, Somerset’s ship sponsor, Mrs. Mary Jo Myers, the wife of former Joint Chiefs of Staff retired Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, gave the time-honored command to “man our ship and bring her to life!”“[Flight 93 passengers and crew members] exemplified such courage and bravery that day as they sacrificed themselves to protect others and to rally our nation they were indeed the first warriors in this war on terrorism,” said Myers. “Today we come together as families, but mostly as Americans to celebrate and witness this momentous occasion and wish the USS Somerset and her crew Godspeed.”The commissioning was the culmination of a week-long celebration in Philadelphia honoring the ship, her crew and the legacy of the 40 passengers and crew member of United Airlines of Flight 93. The ship will be homeported in San Diego.[mappress]Press Release, March 2, 2014, 2014; Image: US Navylast_img read more

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,