The High Court will hear an application by Ryanair on Monday aimed at securing an order preventing industrial action by some of its Irish based pilots later this week.Around 180 pilots who are members of the Irish Air Line Pilots’ Association are due to stop work for 48 hours just after midnight on Thursday in a dispute over pay and conditions.Last Friday, Ryanair secured permission to bring an application for an injunction against IALPA’s parent union Fórsa stopping the industrial action from proceeding. The trade union Forsa is contesting the Irish airlines High Court bid for an injunction preventing the airline’s Irish based pilots from going on strike later this week.Counsel for Ryanair told the High Court that the trade union had not allowed a mediation process to be completed before serving the notice of strike action.He also said the planned work stoppage was in breach of an agreement reached between the parties last year and was designed to cause “maximum disruption” for customers.Two weeks ago members of IALPA voted in a ballot to proceed with industrial action after they claimed the airline was stalling the talks process. A meeting between the sides and mediator Kieran Mulvey last week failed to break the deadlock.Ryanair is facing industrial unrest on a number of fronts at present, with British based pilots who are members of the British Airline Pilots’ Association also due to strike on the same two days this week and for three days next month.Members of Ryanair’s Portuguese cabin crew trade union are also set to go on strike for five days from 21 August in a dispute over leave.Unions representing Ryanair cabin crew in Spain have also announced plans to hold 10 days of strikes in September unless the airline changes its plans to close several bases in the country.The hearing is expected to last for most of the day. High Court to hear Ryanair bid to prevent Thursday’s 48-hour pilots’ strike was last modified: August 19th, 2019 by Staff WriterShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
A press release from University of Chicago reported today that “115-million-year-old fossil of a tiny egg-laying mammal thought to be related to the platypus provides compelling evidence of multiple origins of acute hearing in humans and other mammals” (emphasis added in all quotes). The fossil apparently shows inner-ear bones in the monotreme lineage that supposedly diverged from the reptile-like ancestors of both marsupial and placental mammals.Many paleontologists have doubted that such a seemingly complex adaptation could have originated more than once in mammals, but according to the authors of the paper, the evidence of T. trusleri [the reported shrew-size fossil] indicates that it did. “Nothing like that has ever been found before,” said Tom Rich, PhD, lead author of the paper and curator of vertebrate paleontology at Museum Victoria in Melbourne, Australia.They are claiming that the middle ear bones needed for acute hearing arose twice, independently, within mammals. “How can this supposedly rare and unexpected evolutionary change have occurred so commonly in early mammals?” the press release asks. James Hopson, one of the authors of the paper in Science,1 describes how this might have unfolded:“Recent studies of jaw and ear function in primitive mammal-like reptiles indicate that the larger angular bone may have supported an eardrum while still part of the lower jaw,” Hopson said. But once the dentary bone made a new jaw hinge with the skull in the immediate predecessor of mammals, the accessory jawbones may have abandoned their job of supporting the jaw and evolved exclusively into the middle ear sound-transmitting function.Hopson adds that “Only the evidence of fossils has been able to unravel this tangled history of a complex adaptation.” The only fossil evidence alluded to, however, is T. trusleri and extinct “mammal-like reptiles” without the adaptation, compared with living mammals and the platypus. The scientific paper itself is not sure the transition is clear: “because of the uncertain phylogenetic positions of these taxa with respect to true mammals (monotremes and theriiforms), none provides unequivocal support for the multiple origin of the definitive mammalian middle ear bones” – they only “suggest” the “possibility” of the idea. The paper also discusses uncertainty about the phylogeny of all these groups, and only provisionally builds its case based on one expert’s opinion, “because it is in accord with the polyphyletic origin of the definitive mammalian middle ear but requires the least amount of homoplasy in comparison with other proposed phylogenetic placements of monotremes.” Martin and Luo in Science2 call this a “remarkable example of homoplastic evolution” (another term for convergent evolution, or the supposed independent evolution of similar structures). They call homoplasy a “major feature of evolutionary morphology.” This find, they say, answers a “fascinating but very difficult question facing evolutionary biologists” – that is, “whether a complex structure would be less likely than a simple structure to undergo independent homoplastic evolution.” From the tone of these articles, the only thing not in question by this find is evolution itself.1Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5711, 910-914 , 11 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1105717].2Thomas Martin and Zhe-Xi Luo, “Homoplasy in the Mammalian Ear,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5711, 861-862, 11 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1107202].As always, the independent variable in this equation is Darwinian evolution. Everything else must adjust to keep the story going. Improbabilities? No problem; just create new words like homoplasy that sound scientific, and toss a little pixie dust of natural selection to corral the lucky mutations for engineering complex systems as required. This story looks uglier and uglier the more you peer below the surface to see the shenanigans the Darwin Party is pulling to make their pet theory look good in the face of monstrous problems. Take away the assumption of evolution and they have no leg to stand on. Time to blow the whistle on this scandal.(Visited 29 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Biju Janata Dal (BJD) candidate Rita Sahu registered an impressive victory in the Bijepur Assembly constituency in western Odisha when results of the bypoll were declared on Thursday. She defeated Sanat Gartia of the Bharatiya Janata Party by a record margin of 97,990 votes.Chief Minister and BJD president Naveen Patnaik, who had campaigned for two days for the bypoll, congratulated Ms. Sahu for her “huge historic win, breaking all records in Odisha’s electoral history”.While Ms. Sahu polled 1,35,957 votes, Mr. Gartia secured 37,967 votes. Congress nominee Dillip Panda put up a dismal performance by bagging only 5,873 votes.CM vacates seatThe bypoll was necessitated after Mr. Patnaik, who contested from two Assembly seats for the first time in the elections held earlier this year, vacated Bijepur and retained Hinjili seat in his home district Ganjam in south Odisha.In fact, Mr. Patnaik was elected from Bijepur by defeating Mr. Gartia by 57,122 votes. He had bagged 1,10,604 votes, while Mr. Gartia had secured 53,482 votes and Congress nominee Ripunath Seth had got 14,344 votes.In the previous bypoll in Bijepur that was held in February 2018 following death of Ms. Sahu’s husband and then Congress MLA Subal Sahu, she had won as a BJD candidate by a margin of over 41,000 votes.The Congress, which had won the Bijepur seat in the three elections held before the February 2018 bypoll, has been gradually losing its vote share in the seat in the last three elections, primarily due to its weak leadership at the State level.Vote share upBut what came as a surprise for many this time was the drastic decrease in the BJP’s vote share within a short span of time. The party’s decline from 53,482 votes in the elections held earlier this year to 37,967 votes in the current bypoll has left many leaders of the party dumbfounded. The bonhomie between the party and the BJD in the aftermath of the general election was said to have been the contributing factor.While the Chief Minister led the BJD’s campaign, the BJP’s effort was led by Union Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who campaigned for two days. The campaign for the Congress was led by the party’s State unit president Niranjan Patnaik.
TORONTO – Ontario’s top court sharply rebuked a prominent judge on Thursday for repeatedly failing to explain why she had acquitted a man accused of beating and sexually assaulting a woman.In setting aside the acquittal and ordering the man face a new trial, the Appeal Court expressed dismay at the conduct displayed by Superior Court Justice Susanne Goodman.“Our order directing a new trial is a terrible result for everyone involved in this proceeding,” Justice David Doherty wrote for the court. “The trial judge’s failure to give reasons, despite her repeated promises to do so, has frustrated the proper administration of justice.”In a post-script to the decision, the Appeal Court said the judge had displayed similar behaviour in the past.“Nor is this the first time that this trial judge’s failure to provide reasons has required this court to order a new trial,” the Appeal Court said. “It must be the last time.”Roslyn Levine, a spokeswoman for Superior Court Chief Justice Forster Smith, told The Canadian Press that it would not be appropriate to contact the Toronto-based judge directly.“As this matter is now before the Canadian Judicial Council, it would be inappropriate for Chief Justice Smith to comment on it,” Levine said.The new issue arose after Goodman dismissed all charges against Stanislaw Sliwka in March last year. He was charged after a distressed woman, who can only be identified as A.C., called 911 from an apartment in March 2014.Police were “horrified” to find A.C. had been badly beaten and needed immediate medical assistance, court records show. Her injuries included severe bruising, swelling, numerous cuts, and bleeding to her face and head.During a nine-day trial, A.C. accused Sliwka of repeatedly physically and sexually assaulting her over many months when she lived with him. He denied the assaults. Instead, he called her a drunk who sometimes hurt herself when she fell. He also blamed her injuries on an unknown intruder that had broken into the apartment. His evidence contradicted police testimony.At the end of the trial, Goodman acquitted him, saying she had carefully considered the matter. She said she did not intend the acquittal to be taken as sign she totally believed him or totally disbelieved A.C., but said that on the whole, she was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.“My detailed written reasons will be released on Monday, March 14, 2016,” Goodman said.However, Goodman, who has sat on the court since 2000, failed to release her reasons as promised. Over the following six months, prosecution lawyers repeatedly asked for them, only to be told by Goodman’s assistant that they would be forthcoming on a particular date. It never happened.When the prosecution wrote directly to Goodman last September to say the Crown would argue the appeal should go ahead on the basis that there were no written reasons for the acquittal, the judge simply didn’t respond.At an appeal hearing this month, the prosecution argued the brief comments Goodman made at trial weren’t intended to explain her decision and didn’t count as reasons. As such, they said, the not-guilty verdict had to be overturned.Sliwka argued in response that Goodman’s brief comments were adequate, and that her decision was properly based on trial evidence. The Appeal Court disagreed.“There is no way of knowing how the trial judge arrived at her verdicts,” Doherty wrote.In 2011, the Appeal Court ordered a new trial for a man charged with a weapons offence because Goodman took 25 months to deliver her ruling. In February, the court ordered a new hearing for woman challenging her detention order because Goodman had failed to deliver reasons for keeping her behind bars.