a month agoChelsea winger Hudson-Odoi: Lampard appointment helped contract decision

first_imgChelsea winger Hudson-Odoi: Lampard appointment helped contract decisionby Freddie Taylora month agoSend to a friendShare the loveCallum Hudson-Odoi says Frank Lampard’s appointment gave him an “extra boost” towards signing a new contract with Chelsea.The 18-year-old signed a new five-year contract on Thursday after over a year of negotiations.And Hudson-Odoi has credited Lampard’s presence will helping him decide his long-term future.”I’ve been thinking for a while what it would be like to be playing for Chelsea for the next five years and how everything might go, especially now Frank is here as the manager. “It’s a great feeling for all of us because we know he gives everybody a chance if you’re playing well and working hard.”He’s a very good manager. I can tell that by what he’s trying to do and the things he’s trying to implement into our football. He has the mentality of winning, which we all want and we all need, so him coming in was just an extra boost for me.”He’s already given me confidence, having a chat with me here and there, and it’s great when a manager has faith in you. I’m delighted he’s here and I’m looking forward to working more with him.” About the authorFreddie TaylorShare the loveHave your saylast_img read more

LS elections choice between Modi and chaos Jaitley

first_imgNew Delhi: Calling the upcoming Lok Sabha elections a choice between chaos and Narendra Modi, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Monday said what the Opposition had promised to be a “mahagathbandhan” (grand alliance) was turning out to be an alliance of several conflicting “gathbandhans” with multiple leaders, each trying to outwit the other. Jaitley said that going by past precedents, such an alliance could only lead to chaos. “The choice is clear — it is either Modi or chaos,” he said in a Facebook post. Also Read – How a psychopath killer hid behind the mask of a devout laity! The Finance Minister said while several issues occupied the agenda space in an election, the issue of foremost relevance in 2019 was that of leadership where the Bharatiya Janata Party with “absolute clarity” was a clear winner against a “self-destructive coalition of rivals” in which the leadership issue was an “absolute puzzle”. “Within the NDA there are no leadership issues. There is absolute clarity. Narendra Modi leads the NDA and will be the Prime Minister in the event of a victory. His leadership is nationally accepted, his ratings are very high. His track record speaks for itself,” Jaitley said. Also Read – Encounter under way in Pulwama, militant killed On the other hand, he said, was Congress President Rahul Gandhi “who is an inadequate leader” and has been “tried, tested and failed”. “His lack of understanding of issues is frightening. He aspires to be the leader of this chaotic pack,” Jaitley said. He said Mamata Bannerjee was positioning herself as the “sutradhar” (architect) of this grand alliance but “won’t concede a single seat either to the Congress or the Left in West Bengal but will want them to be her pillion riders if she drives the vehicle.” Taking about the other opposition parties, Jaitley said the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and the Samajwadi Party (SP) would contest against the Congress but eventually join hands, and so would the Trinamool and the Congress-Left alliance in West Bengal. “However, in Kerala the Congress and the Left will contest against each other. The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the National Conference (NC) tried to form the government together with the support of the Congress in Jammu and Kashmir. “Today they are rivals in an election and on the dangerous agenda of either ‘autonomy’ or ‘pre-1953 status’, but could join hands with the ‘gathbandhan’. The Biju Janata Dal (BJD), the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) and the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) are not with the ‘gathbandhan’,” he said. Jaitley said the BSP was wiped out in the last Lok Sabha elections and Mayawati had now changed her strategy and wanted a strong BSP and a weak Congress. “She holds her cards close to her chest. She will open them only after the results are declared…Leaders with flexible ideologies think that they are acceptable to all. The opposition alliance is unclear — it is absolutely fragile,” he said. Jaitley added that none of the opposition parties were capable of winning any significant number of seats and the alliance won’t have a stable nucleus. “What was promised to be ‘mahagathbandhan’ is turning out to be a ‘gathbandhan’ of several conflicting alliances. It is a self-destructive ‘coalition of rivals’,” he said. “The contest is against a leader in whose hands the country is secure and developing. He is trusted. Against him, there isn’t any projected leader. There are multiple leaders, each trying to outwit the other. They can only promise a temporary government if we go by the past precedents. One can be certain of chaos. The choice is clear, it is either Modi or chaos,” Jaitley said.last_img read more

Avianca promises not to cancel any more flights to Costa Rica

first_imgCosta Rican officials including Tourism Minister Allan Flores on Thursday met with Avianca-Taca representatives in Colombia, who said the airline would not cancel more flights to Costa Rica or fire more local employees.Flores met with Avianca President Fabio Villegas to clarify a number of rumors that have circulated recently regarding the future of the airline’s operations in Costa Rica.In May, the airline announced the elimination of five direct flights to Costa Rica and the dismissal of 261 employees in the country.The destinations eliminated included flights between San José and Los Angeles, New York, Havana, Quito and Guayaquil.The airline said at the time that “profitability of these direct destinations were the reason for eliminating the flights.”Avianca still has 1,000 employees working at its Costa Rica operations.The meeting also was attended by Costa Rican Presidency Minister Carlos Ricardo Benavides and Transport Vice Minister Ana Cecilia Jenkins. Facebook Comments Related posts:Delta to add new Minneapolis-San José flight New Costa Rican airline, Ticos Air, now hiring Delta Airlines to offer nonstop flight between San José and Los Angeles Avianca-Taca drops five nonstop flights to Costa Rica, lays off 261 employeeslast_img read more

RTLowned multichannel network Broadband TV has l

first_imgRTL-owned multi-channel network Broadband TV has launched a new business division that will build original games and mobile apps.Broadband TV CEO Shahrzad RafatiBBTV Interactive will create multi-platform games and apps to connect digital talent with their fans, in a move that is designed to expand revenue streams and was announced at CES in Las Vegas.“We’re placing an emphasis on building mobile games that are truly broadcastable,” said Lewis Ball, vice-president interactive, e-commerce and professional services at BroadbandTV.“We’re in a unique position as we already work with top digital talent that each have large highly engaged audiences allowing us to directly market the apps to targeted consumers.”Ball described the move as a “significant opportunity” and it is one that builds on a number of previous app developments by Broadband TV.The company made a mobile game for Spanish YouTuber Fernanfloo that was downloaded by more than 9.5 million iOS and Android users, and is due to launch its latest game, Squad Rivals, as a closed beta trial later this month.Broadband TV said it has been committed to further expanding revenue streams with its monetisation strategy now spanning ad- and subscription-supported video-on-demand, mobile apps, e-commerce, and licensing.The Vancouver-based company claims to be the third largest video property globally after Google and Facebook with 34 billion views per month and 285 million unique viewers. Its total annual viewership increased 66% from 2016 to 2017 to reach 341.4 billion.Broadband TV is 51% owned by RTL Group, however the German media giant said last year that it would not exercise its call option to acquire the remaining 49% of the company and had instead decided to explore “all strategic alternatives” for Broadband TV together with minority shareholders.last_img read more

I see you standing here asking for help about on

first_imgI see you standing here, asking for help, about once a week. You are always polite, and I respect that. I’d like to do something for you… something that would matter long-term. Giving you a few notes or coins now and then may be fine, but I’d really like to improve your situation more permanently. In other words, I’d like to give you a job. I used to hire people, and I especially liked hiring people who had been denied breaks. I did that whenever I could. If you and I could be transported back in time, I’d hire you. And I’d feel good about it, because I think having a job would do you a lot of good. That fact is, however, that I can’t hire you, and I’d like you to know why. I used to run my own contracting firm. I enjoyed the work and I liked being able to drive past a building and say, “I made that.” Having employees, however, was torture. I liked having them in some ways, of course – I liked the guys and it made me happy to see them take care of their families with paychecks that I signed. That was very gratifying. But it wasn’t enough, and there are three reasons why: #1: Making Payroll My first problem was simply cash flow. I was solely responsible for having enough money in the bank every week, and that could be nerve-wracking, especially when customers weren’t paying their bills on time. It’s not fun to think that a family won’t be able to buy groceries if you can’t collect your invoices. Still, that part didn’t cause me to give up on employees. It was hard, but so long as my employees were working, we were making money, so there was always something coming in at some point. Somehow, I was able to pull it off. #2: Being Hated Over time, some of my employees became jerks. This seemed to grow from envy and from stupid ideas about labor versus management. These guys decided that I was getting rich off of them, and demanded I pay them more – more than they deserved and more than the company could afford. And the really nasty part was this: It was always the guys I had done the most for who hated me most. And as soon as I sat down with them and explained why I couldn’t pay them more, they started stealing from me. I fired the thieves, of course, but these experiences really soured me on employees. I had not only given these guys a job, but I had legitimately felt good about helping to feed their families. In return, they hated me, called me names, and stole from me. By itself, that was almost enough to make me swear off employing people, but not quite. #3: The IRS What really drove me over the edge was dealing with the government and the IRS in particular. They were abominable. I had to file forms with every payroll, and if anything on them was wrong, they penalized me – heavily. And if I paid them a single day late, they penalized me – heavily. And if they said I did something wrong – even if I didn’t – there was no way to change their verdict. Reason and evidence simply didn’t matter. I eventually talked to a tax lawyer who explained the situation to me. He said: Forget about fighting, Paul. There is no ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in tax court. You’re automatically guilty, and you have to try to prove yourself innocent… which is very hard and very expensive. Just pay them. I know you hate that, but you have no other choice. Fighting them would ruin you. It wasn’t just the money that got me about this – it was that they were nasty, arrogant, heartless tyrants. Having the facts on my side didn’t matter. Intelligent arguments didn’t matter. Either I paid what they demanded or they would hurt me worse. In many ways, it wasn’t much different than the local gang of street thugs demanding protection money. So, that’s why I can’t hire you: Having employees locked me into a single role in life, that of a despised slave. When I finally realized that, I walked away. I was lucky that I had the ability to move into specialties and to thrive in difficult niches; other guys probably couldn’t have. So… What I really want you to know is this: I’d like to help you. You deserve a chance at a decent job. I’d like to be the guy who gave it to you, but the system demands that I must live as a slave in order to do so. And I won’t do that. I very much wish that things were different, and I feel sorry every time I drive by that I can’t hire you. But I would never ask anyone to live as a slave, and I won’t live that way myself. I wish you well, and if life in these parts should ever pull back from the present reign of oppression, I hope to run into you. And on that day, I hope to either hire you or do business with you. We would both have much to gain from it. Paul Rosenberg FreemansPerspective.comlast_img read more

More than two decades after South Africa ousted a

first_imgMore than two decades after South Africa ousted a racist apartheid system that trapped the vast majority of South Africans in poverty, more than half the country still lives below the national poverty line and most of the nation’s wealth remains in the hands of a small elite.”The country was very unequal in 1994 [at the end of apartheid] and now 25 years later South Africa is the most unequal country in the world,” says Victor Sulla, a senior economist for the World Bank in charge of southern Africa. “There is no country that we have data about where the inequality is higher than South Africa.”Sulla is the lead author of a new report on poverty and inequality in South Africa.There are various ways to look at economic inequality and South Africa scores terribly on all of them. Income inequality looks at the gap between what the lowest paid workers earn each day versus the salaries of top employees.”The people at the bottom in South Africa, they get wages comparable to the people who live in Bangladesh. It’s very, very poor. Wages of less than $50 a month,” Sulla says. “If you take the top ten percent, they live like in Austria. So it’s very high level even by European standards or even by U.S. standards. And we are talking just about employees, people who are getting paid.” And not the super-rich who are earning income from factories or property or other investments.In addition to a huge problem with income inequality, South Africa also has a significant problem with wealth inequality. Wealth inequality looks at the range of a person’s assets. So a businessman in Johanesburg might own real estate, factories or other investments while a farmer in KwaZulu Natal might not even own the land she’s tilling.This new report from the World Bank finds that the top 1 percent of South Africans own 70.9 percent of the nation’s wealth. The bottom 60 percent of South Africans collectively control only 7 percent of the country’s assets.”How is that possible? Someone must explain this to me!” exclaims 30-year-old Phiwe Budaza, reached on her cellphone in Cape Town. “How is that even possible?”Budaza, who grew up in the township of Khayelitsha, says inequality is part of life in South Africa.”There’s always been a difference between the white and the black but I think it’s getting worse now,” she says. Before her cellphone battery dies Budaza says she doesn’t have a permanent job. She freelances as a photographer and in her words “hustles” to cover her bills.”I work as a bartender and I work for a rental company that rents cameras and film equipment,” she says.”It’s hard for someone like me who doesn’t have a full-time job to survive in Cape Town. The rent for an apartment [in the city] is like three times what I earn in a month.” She says she ends up living outside the city, which makes it harder to get to some jobs.Budaza is not alone in struggling to make ends meet every month in South Africa. The nation’s official unemployment rate is currently at 27 percent compared to roughly 4 percent in the United States.”South Africa is really facing the triple challenge of poverty, unemployment and inequality,” says the former head of the African Union, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, about the report. Dlamini-Zuma is a long-time anti-apartheid activist who now heads up a national planning commission in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s cabinet.”We are a relatively rich country but with a lot of poor people,” she says.If things don’t change dramatically in South Africa, Dlamini-Zuma adds, the country will fail to reach its goal of eliminating extreme poverty (people earning less than $1.90 a day) by the year 2030.South Africa has been focused on trying to bring down poverty and reduce inequality. And it’s had some success. Post-apartheid, the government launched a significant Black Economic Empowerment program to promote the transfer of white-owned business to black investors. South Africa has invested heavily in social programs including free primary education, a plan for universal health care, infrastructure projects to expand access to clean water and minimum income grants to parents.Sulla at the World Bank says South Africa under the post-apartheid ANC government has been a leader on social programs.”Their social protection programs in terms of different grants and support for the poor are working very well,” he says. “This country is one of the best in the world in terms of the efficiency of its social protection system.”Yet despite these efforts the number of South Africans living below the national poverty has actually been increasing since 2011. In 2015, 55.5 percent of South Africans or more than 30 million people were surviving on less than $5 a day.Sulla says the lack of progress against poverty is partly due to what he calls “opportunity inequality.” Some people have more access to opportunity than others. And the people who’ve traditionally had wealth and economic opportunities continue to enjoy those benefits.Dlamini-Zuma says the legacy of the apartheid regime still casts a long shadow over the opportunities available for millions of South Africans.”We should not shy away from acknowledging that apartheid was a system that systematically excluded black people from the economy, from skills, from everything. So overcoming that has to be a big part of what we do.”She says South Africa’s progress will be measured on the progress it makes against the “dehumanizing scourge” of poverty.”Poverty stops us from reaching our full potential individually and collectively,” she says. “It’s not good to be the country with the highest inequality in the world. We need to get ourselves out of that space. But it’s not going to be easy.” Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.last_img read more

Footballs Premier League has been branded dishone

first_imgFootball’s Premier League has been branded dishonest by the equality watchdog’s disability commissioner, over its attitude to access and inclusion.Lord [Chris] Holmes told MPs that there had not been “anything like an inclusive culture” in the Premier League and in Premier League clubs, which was “a great shame when it is our only national game”.He said the Premier League “needed a completely different mind-set” and pointed to the “pages and pages” devoted to broadcast arrangements in the Premier League rule book, compared with “just one line” on access.He said that changes required for television broadcasters, when new technology was introduced, were carried out “within weeks” rather than the “decades” it has taken to make access improvements.Lord Holmes, disability commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission and himself a retired Paralympian, was giving evidence to the culture, media and sport select committee as part of its inquiry into access to sports stadiums for disabled people.He contrasted the Premier League’s attitude to that of Premiership rugby union and county cricket, which had both worked closely with the watchdog to improve access and inclusion.Asked by Tory MP Nigel Huddleston what he saw in those sports that was different to football’s Premier League, he said they were “collaborative, open, honest, prepared to share”.He then added, in response to a follow-up question from Huddleston, that it would be “delightful” in the future to be able to use the same words to describe the Premier League.Lord Holmes said that some clubs had done “as good as nothing” for more than 20 years to improve access.And he warned that the commission could take legal action under the Equality Act against individual clubs, and even against the Premier League itself, depending on the progress demonstrated in the next few months.He said: “I don’t think we have an inclusive culture. We don’t even have a culture of compliance from Premier League clubs and the Premier League.”The Premier League’s executive director, Bill Bush, had earlier told the committee that he could not yet name the clubs that were set to break their promise that they would meet guidelines on access laid down 13 years ago in the Accessible Stadia Guide.The Premier League said last year that all of its clubs had promised to meet the guidelines by August 2017, but Lord Holmes told the committee that probably more than a third of the clubs would fail to meet that pledge.Bush said he was not “hiding” the names of the clubs, but that it would not have been fair to name them at this stage because the Premier League had so far only carried out a “dipstick test” of their accessibility, which was not “definitive”.He said the Premier League would publish a club-by-club account of progress in January.Lord Holmes said that this refusal to release the names of individual clubs until January was “not entirely helpful”.He also pointed to a new mobile phone app that has been launched for football fans by the Premier League, even though it was not accessible.He said: “It clearly demonstrates that if that thinking is going on, there is no sense of an inclusive culture and there’s no sense of embracing the positive opportunity that exists here.”Lord Holmes praised smaller clubs like Wrexham and Tranmere Rovers, both in the fifth tier of English and Welsh football, and both of which have improved access despite their grounds being more than 100 years old.Bush claimed that Premier League clubs took the issue of access “very, very seriously” and none of them had ever said they could not afford to carry out access improvements.He claimed that any delays were due to other factors, such as the “disruption” caused by the major building work necessary to put in lifts and viewing platforms.last_img read more