Advertisement NewsLocal NewsMurder investigation begins after fatal stabbingBy admin – January 18, 2012 498 Facebook Print Previous articleEagles soar to final spotNext articleMentors sought for Le Cheile Mentoring Project admin A MURDER garda investigation is to get underway in Limerick after a 43-year-old man was found outside a house with multiple stab wounds by members of the ambulance service. The man was found by the emergency services outside a house on Lenihan Avenue shortly after 12.30am in the early hours of Wednesday morning. Gardai from Roxboro were alerted to attend the scene and they say that the man was found on the steps outside the front door of the house in the city with multiple stab wounds and he was taken to the Mid Western Regional Hospital.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up WhatsApp Twitter Linkedin However the man was later pronounced dead.The State Pathologist’s office attended the scene which has been sealed off and a technical examination of the area is being carried out by the Garda Technical Bureau.A postmortem is to be carried out on the remains.It is understood that the victim was known to gardai and was from the area. Email
Aid agency merger will help improve humanitarian efforts around the worldOn 22 Apr 2003 in Personnel Today HR professionals in the voluntary sector have welcomed a merger between twoaid agencies that provide staff to work in humanitarian emergencies such asIraq. The merger of the International Health Exchange (IHE), which specialises inhealth professionals, and RedR, which concentrates on engineers, logisticiansand managers, will provide charities with a ‘one-stop shop’ for recruiting andtraining aid workers. Annie Macklow-Smith, director of HR for the aid agency Merlin, which usesboth IHE and RedR, said the new organisation would help meet recruitment needsin the sector, which is gearing up to meet the post-war humanitarian crisis inIraq. “Engineers and health professionals are the people we recruit most, soto have them together is an advantage,” she said. Oxfam’s director of international HR, Andrew Thompson, agreed the mergerwould allow a more integrated approach to humanitarian work. Bobby Lambert, director of RedR, told Personnel Today that the twoorganisations were providing very similar services but with different groups ofstaff. Each maintain registers of professionals prepared to work in emergencies anddeliver training programmes for aid workers. “By merging, we become a one-stop shop for agencies, as well as for aidworkers who want professional development,” he said. The skills of health workers and engineers were complementary, he added. “If you look at Basra, the thing that affects health almost immediatelyis water and sanitation. That’s where you need both engineers and health professionalsworking together.” The merger comes as both organisations struggle for funds. Each has avariety of funding streams, including the Department for InternationalDevelopment, smaller grants and training fees. But many small agencies arecutting their training budgets as they come under pressure to keep downmanagement overheads. Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos. Previous Article Next Article
November’s broad election gains for House and Senate Republicans do not equal a mandate to roll back hard-won protections for the environment, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson said Friday (Dec. 3) at Harvard Law School (HLS).The EPA’s aggressive work to clean up the environment during the Obama administration’s first two years has made it a target for the ire of some Republicans, Jackson said. But she argued that the same voters who put those Republicans in office also approved numerous ballot measures protecting the environment in their home states.“No candidate ran on a promise to put more pollution in our air and water, and no one was sent to Congress with a mandate to increase health risks for our children,” Jackson said.Jackson was the keynote speaker in the School’s Ames Courtroom during an all-day conference marking the 40th anniversary of the EPA’s creation. The event was sponsored by the Harvard University Center for the Environment (HUCE), the Law School, the Harvard Kennedy School (HKS), and the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) . Among the speakers and panelists was former Vice President Al Gore, who addressed the luncheon.President Drew Faust (from left) talks with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, former Vice President Al Gore, and Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow.Jackson said that the EPA has been aggressive under her leadership but that critics who argue that environmental protection and economic development can’t coexist are wrong. Despite repeated predictions of economic doom from industry groups when significant protection legislation has been passed, those industries have endured and the economy has continued to grow. In fact, Jackson said, regulations have provided the inducement for innovations such as the catalytic converter, replacement chemicals for ozone-killing chlorofluorocarbons, and an industrial sector dedicated to producing “green” products.“President Obama has insisted that the choice between our economy and our environment is indeed a false choice,” Jackson said. “We’ve been more than happy to prove him right.”The EPA’s past successes have provided a series of environmental protections that the public would be loath to part with, Jackson said. Among them are removing lead from gasoline and the air, reducing acid rain, providing the scientific foundation for secondhand-smoke regulations, cleaning rivers and water supplies, halting the widespread use of the pesticide DDT, increasing vehicle efficiency, and controlling toxic substances.“This list represents million of lives saved and trillions of dollars in health benefits,” Jackson said. “These changes touched the life of every single American since 1970. … This list represents things the American people would refuse to do without.”One of the more contentious challenges lying ahead involves action on climate change. A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA cleared the way for EPA action on such change under the Clean Air Act. The case determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by vehicles are indeed pollutants and therefore subject to EPA regulation. In 2009, the EPA released an “endangerment finding” under the Clean Air Act, saying that greenhouse gases can threaten public health and the environment and that emissions from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that endangers public health.One of the panels explored the ramifications of those actions and the extent to which the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases without major climate change legislation, which is stalled in Congress.The panel, led by HUCE Director Dan Schrag, Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology and professor of environmental science and engineering, featured EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe, Archibald Cox Professor of Law at Harvard Law School Jody Freeman, Executive Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council Peter Lehner, and EPA Associate Administrator Lisa Heinzerling.Perciasepe said that with more sweeping climate change legislation stalled, there are still actions that can be taken under the Clean Air Act to address the emissions of greenhouse gases.“If we can’t do the big thing, we should do something, and the Clean Air Act is a way to do something,” Perciasepe said.The EPA already has taken other steps, such as the Energy Star appliance program, to use less fuel — and thus emit fewer greenhouse gases — through efficiency.Freeman said that a piecemeal approach that fully uses the executive branch’s powers to make rules and regulations under existing laws, such as the Clean Air Act, and that takes advantage of state and local efforts to fight climate change could actually make significant reductions. That goal would require, though, that multiple efforts on many fronts all be successful, she said, even in the face of opposition lawsuits and moves in Congress to weaken or block action through legislation. One unsung but critical strategy will likely involve “playing defense” against current and future action in the courts and Congress, Freeman added.While those actions could help the nation reach interim greenhouse gas reduction targets, the only way to reach long-term goals, Freeman said, is to pass more comprehensive climate change legislation.A piecemeal approach that fully uses the executive branch’s powers to make rules and regulations under existing laws, such as the Clean Air Act, and that takes advantage of state and local efforts to fight climate change could actually make significant reductions, contends Harvard Law School Professor Jody Freeman.
And now the question – what will happen in the medium and long term? What EU leaders don’t want, Incerti reports, is long, dragged-out negotiations. Article 50 of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, they say, should be enacted straight away.Incerti, at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), also notes, wryly, that the referendum impact on the descending value of the pound had, already, during the first morning, resulted in the UK’s losing its status as the world’s fifth-largest economy. That honour now goes to France.Clearly prompted by rage, one reaction to the Leave vote comes from Elmar Brok, a member of the European Parliament. Significantly, he is also president of the Union of European Federalists. The German centre-rightist recommended that EU president Jean-Claude Junker immediately remove Lord Jonathan Hill as the British commissioner for financial services. Brok was by no means alone. In fact Hill, a devoted European, announced the next day that he would stand down. Valdis Dombrovskis, the Latvian commissioner, will take his place.But not so fast, cautions another commentator. I would not agree with Brok on Hill’s position, Zsolt Darvas tells IPE. Remember, whatever happens, the UK will remain a member of the EU for at least another two years. Perhaps, it could be “much longer”, suggests Darvas, a visiting fellow at another think tank, Bruegel.Interestingly, Darvas, a Hungarian, goes a stride further. He would not exclude the possibility of a second referendum in the UK. This could follow a fury-driven general election later this year. He might agree that forecasts of economic calamities, such as tragic job losses, coming true, could force such a move. Roughly on the same track, another bystander notes the young age-bracket of the Remain voters – young, virile and furious. Yet another observer, a mid-level official in the European Commission, wonders how the UK could ever square off the fact that 48% of the British voters, many with long lives ahead, did vote for Remain.Furthermore, Darvas offers that the Leave side, being strongly powered by opposition to immigration, could mean that the UK has to stick to its guns on this issue. This would rule out any Norway/Switzerland style outcome. Leaving what other options? And if London were to lose passporting rights, matters would be further “complicated”. A forecast of large funds having to leave the City could not be that far away.Back to the European Parliament, another MEP, with a less strident line than Brok’s, comes from Green Party member Sven Giegold. This MEP refers to Brexit as “a historic setback for the European Union but not its end”.However, Giegold goes on to note that, if the UK thinks it can have open access to the single market without taking on its common rules, it would be mistaken. There could be no free movement of capital for the City without free movement for citizens, he warns. Forces leading to a tumultuous political scene emerging in the UK do seem to be piling up. Will the pandemonium lead to another election soon? If Labour campaigned to stay in the EU by refusing to trigger Article 50, the effect would be the same as a second referendum. Out of the question? Perhaps not entirely. Jeremy Woolfe considers some of the many scenarios facing the UK and the EU post-BrexitThe fundamental reaction to the referendum result in Brussels appears to be one of shock. It was more or less completely unexpected. Discussion on the subject, at the previous day’s PensionsEurope annual gathering in Brussels, had been universally optimistic the Remain side would prevail.This view was supported by the 52%-48% Remain vs Leave polls, as well as by the performance of financial markets. A mood of optimism, nervous though it might be, prevailed. It lasted until up to around an hour after midnight British time.Then, at the no doubt one of many late-night Brussels gatherings, came the Newcastle result. Then, nail-biting and worry promptly set it. And finally, as told to IPE by think tank researcher Marco Incerti, the morning after dawned with a general feeling of sickening confusion.