£5k to invest? Here are 2 FTSE 100 dividend stocks I’d buy right now

first_img “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Image source: Getty Images £5k to invest? Here are 2 FTSE 100 dividend stocks I’d buy right now I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. Rupert Hargreaves | Monday, 2nd March, 2020 | More on: AZN GSK center_img The FTSE 100’s recent declines have thrown up some fantastic bargains for long-term investors. With that being the case, here are two FTSE 100 defensive dividend stocks that look to be attractive investments even though they have fallen in value over the past week.AstraZenecaShares in global pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca (LSE: AZN) have lost more than 10% since the middle of February. However, despite this decline, the company’s long-term fundamentals remain robust.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…The demand for healthcare around the world is only growing. An ageing population, coupled with increasing global wealth, means more people need healthcare, and more can afford to pay for it.That’s excellent news for pharmaceutical companies. Astra will also benefit from its growth investments over the next few years. Since the middle of the decade, the company has been investing heavily in the development of new oncology drugs. The development of these treatments has been slow but steady. Analysts believe management’s patience will start to pay off during the next few years.Indeed, over the next two years, analysts are forecasting an increase in net profit. It will hit $6.8bn in 2021, up from $2bn in 2018, according to current projections. These forecasts imply the business will earn $5.2 per share in 2021. That’s the highest level in at least six years.These numbers suggest that while the market might think Astra is worth less today than it was at the beginning of last week, from a fundamental perspective, the business is still growing. As such, it now looks to be an excellent time to snap up shares in this blue-chip giant at a discount.The stock is trading at a price-to-earnings (P/E) multiple of 20.9, at the time of writing. That suggests the shares are dealing at a PEG ratio of 0.8. A ratio of less than one implies a stock offers growth at a reasonable price.GlaxoSmithKlineShares in GlaxoSmithKline (LSE: GSK) also look appealing for many of the same reasons. Demand for the company’s products is only increasing and, as one of the world’s leading vaccine producers, management believes Glaxo can help the fight against COVID-19.Still, at this point, it’s impossible to tell if Glaxo’s bottom line will benefit from its contributions to help fight the virus. Nevertheless, even without this boost, the company’s long-run growth potential is highly attractive.Earnings per share are forecast to hit 121p for 2021. That’s up from 65p in 2014. On top of this, the stock offers a dividend yield of 5.1%. With the payout covered 1.5 times by earnings per share, it looks as if it’s secure for the foreseeable future. That’s barring any large, unforeseen adverse developments in the next few years. As well as its market-beating dividend yield, shares in Glaxo are also dealing at a P/E of just 13.5. That compares to the sector average of 16.5. Therefore, it looks as if the stock offers a wide margin of safety at current levels.Overall, if you’re looking for two stocks that could be safe havens in stormy waters, you should consider adding Glaxo and Astra to your portfolio today. Rupert Hargreaves owns no share mentioned. The Motley Fool UK owns shares of and has recommended GlaxoSmithKline. The Motley Fool UK has recommended AstraZeneca. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! Enter Your Email Address See all posts by Rupert Hargreaveslast_img read more

3 ‘reopening’ stocks I’d buy today

first_img3 ‘reopening’ stocks I’d buy today “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Image source: Getty Images Edward Sheldon owns shares in Alphabet. Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool’s board of directors. The Motley Fool UK owns shares of and has recommended Alphabet (C shares) and Visa. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Edward Sheldon, CFA | Friday, 19th March, 2021 | More on: CCH GOOG V With Covid-19 vaccines rolling out rapidly, many investors are now focusing on ‘reopening’ stocks. Owning a selection of reopening stocks is a great idea, in my view.That said, I think it’s crucial to be selective when investing in reopening plays. Some of these stocks, such as hotel chains, have already had huge runs which means the good news could be priced in already. Others, such as airlines, look financially vulnerable.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…Here, I’m going to highlight three reopening stocks I’d be happy to buy for my own portfolio today. These should benefit as economic activity picks up. However, they also have long-term growth potential.VisaOne stock that strikes me as a great reopening play is Visa (NYSE: V). It operates the world’s largest payments network. For every $1 spent by consumers in physical locations, $0.15 goes through Visa’s network.During the pandemic, Visa’s revenues declined as less transactions took place. This year and next year should be very different however. As the world reopens, transactions are likely to surge. It’s worth noting that around 20% of Visa’s revenue comes from international transactions. So, the company should benefit as international travel eventually picks up.In the long term, the future looks bright for Visa. According to Accenture, 2.7trn transactions are set to move from cash to cards and e-payments by 2030.But Visa is an expensive stock. Its forward-looking P/E ratio is about 40 and this only adds risk to the investment case. All things considered however, I think the stock has a lot of appeal.AlphabetAnother stock that strikes me as a good reopening play is Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG). It owns Google and YouTube and is the largest digital advertising company in the world.As the world returns to normal and economic activity picks up, businesses are likely to increase their advertising budgets. This should benefit Alphabet. Travel advertising, in particular, could drive Alphabet’s top-line much higher, in my view.But Alphabet isn’t just a reopening play. This stock appears to have strong long-term growth potential. Between now and 2025, the online advertising market is set to more than double in size and this growth should provide strong tailwinds for the company.However, one risk here is that regulators are targeting big tech firms like Alphabet. This adds some uncertainty to the investment case. Overall, however, I think the risk/reward proposition is attractive. The stock’s P/E ratio of 30 seems reasonable to me, given the long-term growth potential.Coca-Cola HBCFinally, I also think Coca-Cola HBC (LSE: CCH) is worth a look as a reopening stock. It’s a strategic partner of the Coca-Cola Company that bottles and distributes its products in 28 countries.Revenues here took a big hit in 2020 due to Covid-19 lockdowns. With restaurants and bars closed, travel halted, and live sport played behind closed doors, sales plummeted 12.7% to €6.1bn.The rollout of vaccines should be a game-changer for Coca-Cola HBC. “We expect to see a strong FX-neutral revenue recovery in 2021,” the company said recently. For FY2021 and FY2022, analysts expect revenue growth of 8.3% and 6.7% respectively.Of course, if we see Covid-19 setbacks, Coca-Cola HBC could be impacted. This is a risk. But with the shares still about 25% below their all-time high and trading on a forward-looking P/E ratio of under 20, I think it’s a good time to be buying this reopening stock. Enter Your Email Address Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge!center_img Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. See all posts by Edward Sheldon, CFAlast_img read more

Charities offered space on world’s ]longest web banner’

first_imgUK registered charities interested in free space on the Longest Web Banner in the World should contact [email protected] for more information. Free banner space offered on a first come first served basis.ENDCONTACT INFORMATIONTara RoskellLongest Web BannerEmail Ushttp://www.longestwebbanner.com  20 total views,  2 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Howard Lake | 30 March 2006 | News Free Space for Fifty UK Registered Charities on the Longest Web Banner in the Worldhttp://www.longestwebbanner.com To celebrate the launch of the website the Longest Web Banner in the World, the company is offering 50 UK Registered charities a free 120 pixel banner space.(PressMethod) – On 31st March two designers Rakesh Patel and Tara Roskell, based in Northamptonshire, England launched their new website, a unique new concept to create a web banner, which they hope will grow to become the longest web banner in the world. They have taken the idea of a web banner, as seen on websites every day and made it into an entity in its own right. To celebrate the launch of the Longest Web Banner in the World they would like to offer fifty UK registered charities a 150 pixel long space on the banner. Ten of the fifty charities, picked at random will also have the option of having their advert professionally designed for free.The banner home page features random images/adverts so whether you were the first person to place an image or the last, your image should have equal amount of exposure. Each advert can have a URL link and short description which can be organised by category or alphabetically. There is a category specifically for charities to advertise their fundraising events and other aspects of their charity. The banner is for both for business and personal use so the potential market is high. Advertisementcenter_img Charities offered space on world’s ]longest web banner’ Tagged with: Digital About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.last_img read more

Witchhunt in Niger

first_img The 2020 pandemic has challenged press freedom in Africa Receive email alerts November 27, 2020 Find out more News to go further Reports The conviction of Niger newspaper editor Moussa Aksar is an attack on investigative journalism RSF_en Niger: Two journalists arrested in disturbing setback for press freedom June 8, 2016 – Updated on June 9, 2016 Witchhunt in Niger Follow the news on Niger Policemen in Niger – ISSOUF SANOGO / AFP NigerAfrica Condemning abuses ImprisonedFreedom of expression NigerAfrica Condemning abuses ImprisonedFreedom of expression May 11, 2021 Find out more Organisation Yesterday a prosecutor questioned the three journalists who were arrested for publishing documents in the newspaper Le Courrier that reflected badly on leading members of Niger society. He ordered that two of them, the newspaper’s owner, Moussa Dodo, and its editor, Ali Soumana, should be detained pending trial.RSF is of the view that the prosecutor clearly violated the right to freedom of information because he based his decision on Niger’s penal code instead of its press law. Dodo and Soumana have been charged with “divulging documents seized during a search and bringing discredit on a judicial decision.” Soumana Idrissa, the printer, was released but has been charged with complicity.***********************************************************************Reporters Without Borders calls for the immediate release of three journalists who have been arrested for publishing information involving leading members of Niger society although the information was already in the public domain because it was submitted as evidence in a court case.The three journalists are Ali Soumana and Moussa Dodo, owner and editor of Le Courrier, the newspaper that published copies of the documents submitted in evidence, and Soumana Idrissa Maiga, the owner of the printing company that prints Le Courrier.Soumana and Dodo have been held since 4 June on a charge of “publishing documents.” Maiga, who owns his own newspaper as well as a printing press, has been held at the headquarters of the judicial police since yesterday evening on a charge of “printing Le Courrier.”The police are still questioning Soumana and Dodo in an attempt to identify their sources. Their homes were searched the day they were arrested.Published in Le Courrier on 19 May and 2 June, the documents were copies of requests by leading members of Niger society to the director for hiring at the public health ministry asking him to ensure that their relatives or protégés succeeded in the competitive examination that all job applicants must take.The documents were produced as evidence in the fraud prosecution brought against the civil servants involved in the scandal. Those who allegedly tried to influence the results of the entrance exam include the First Lady, the president of the constitutional court, the armed forces chief of staff and the oil minister.“This persecution of journalists who just did their job is intolerable,” RSF said. “The documents concerned were already in the public domain because they were produced as part of an ongoing investigation. The authorities are bringing discredit upon themselves by hounding journalists like this. They are also violating Niger’s press law.”Under the press law, the judicial authorities may only take action against a newspaper’s printer when its owner or editor is unavailable. But in this case, the authorities have holding the owner and editor since 4 June. The same law also prohibits detaining journalists for press offences.Niger is ranked 52nd out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2016 World Press Freedom Index. Mahamadou Issoufou’s election as president in 2011 had raised hopes of an improvement in respect for media freedom but certain government officials now seem to be cracking down. News News Help by sharing this information July 16, 2020 Find out morelast_img read more

New opposition newspaper suspended for three months

first_imgNews September 1, 2015 – Updated on January 20, 2016 New opposition newspaper suspended for three months KazakhstanEurope – Central Asia Follow the news on Kazakhstan Kazakh reporter accuses police of attacking her Just six months after its launch, the opposition newspaper ADAM has been suspended for three months on characteristically absurd bureaucratic grounds. Reporters Without Borders condemns its closure, which is typical of the Kazakh government’s unacceptable suppression of media freedom.ADAM was launched on 13 March, almost immediately after its predecessor, the weekly ADAM bol, was closed at the end of February, but the Kazakh authorities were clearly unable to stand by and let a new opposition newspaper emerge from the ashes of the last one.The company that prints ADAM notified the newspaper’s management on 27 August that it was unable to print the latest issue for “technical reasons.” Representatives of the regional government of Almaty (Kazakhstan’s business capital) went to the newspaper’s headquarters later the same day and handed over a temporary closure order claiming that it had violated its statutes by publishing articles that were not in the Kazakh language.Two hours later, an Almaty administrative court issued an order suspending the newspaper for three months and fining it 200,000 tenge (750 euros).“ADAM’s suspension is discriminatory and utterly disproportionate,” said Johann Bihr, the head of the Reporters Without Borders Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk.“The use of such absurd bureaucratic pretexts is typical and cannot hide the fact that the authorities clearly want to close this publication for good because they regard it as a nuisance. We urge them to rescind this unjust decision and to end this persecution, which has gone on for too long.”Like ADAM bol, its predecessor, ADAM is the creation of the well-known opposition journalist Guljan Yergaliyeva. ADAM bol was also initially suspended and fined before being forced to close for good in February. All the publications launched by Yergaliyeva in recent years have ended up being suppressed.The already difficult media climate became suffocating in Kazakhstan after all the leading national opposition newspapers were closed simultaneously in December 2012. Since then, any attempt to launch new independent publications is quickly quashed. Arrests of journalists and bloggers are also common.Kazakhstan is ranked 160st out of 180 countries in the 2015 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index. RSF_en Help by sharing this information KazakhstanEurope – Central Asia to go further February 5, 2021 Find out morecenter_img News Receive email alerts Organisation News Regional newspaper editor harassed after investigating real estate scandal Reporters prevented from covering Kazakh parliamentary elections News January 15, 2021 Find out more October 30, 2020 Find out morelast_img read more

Police Still Want to Know How 13-Year-Old Got Handgun, Say New Law Is Hampering Efforts

first_img faithfernandez More » ShareTweetShare on Google+Pin on PinterestSend with WhatsApp,Virtual Schools PasadenaHomes Solve Community/Gov/Pub SafetyPasadena Public WorksPasadena Water and PowerPASADENA EVENTS & ACTIVITIES CALENDARClick here for Movie Showtimes Business News More Cool Stuff Subscribe 23 recommended2 commentsShareShareTweetSharePin it STAFF REPORT Pasadena’s ‘626 Day’ Aims to Celebrate City, Boost Local Economy Thank you Community News Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * May 20th, 2021 at 6:30 am JoAnn Jackson says: Hello – This article is a bit incomplete. How is the new law slowing the investigation? Have they not been able to put the suspect in contact with an attorney? Or has an attorney advised the suspect to not answer questions? Just one more sentence would add so much clarification to this story. May 20th, 2021 at 7:13 pm Make a comment Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m. 2 thoughts on “Police Still Want to Know How 13-Year-Old Got Handgun, Say New Law Is Hampering Efforts” STAFF REPORT First Heatwave Expected Next Week CITY NEWS SERVICE/STAFF REPORT Pasadena Will Allow Vaccinated People to Go Without Masks in Most Settings Starting on Tuesday Community News Michael says: Name (required)  Mail (required) (not be published)  Website  Home of the Week: Unique Pasadena Home Located on Madeline Drive, Pasadena Top of the News Public Safety Police Still Want to Know How 13-Year-Old Got Handgun, Say New Law Is Hampering Efforts STAFF REPORT Published on Wednesday, May 19, 2021 | 2:57 pm A photo of the gun police said they recovered from a 13-year-old boy arrested after a traffic stop in Pasadena on May 14, 2021. (Image courtesy Pasadena Police Dept.)Police still don’t know how a 13-year old boy they arrested on Saturday got a handgun.Police arrested the boy who they say was armed and already being sought on a warrant after he ran from officers on Friday night, officials said.The arrest triggered a relatively new procedure, police said. In California, children under 15 must now first consult with an attorney before waiving their Miranda rights.In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the law which guarantees children under 15 speak to a lawyer before deciding to waive their Miranda rights and submit to an investigation.In order to speak to juveniles under 15, police must use an on-call number and wait for an attorney to call back.“With the relatively new law regarding the questioning of juveniles involved in criminal activity, law enforcement officers are required to provide counsel/an attorney to juveniles before answering any questions,” said Lt. William Grisafe. “This step restricts the ability of officers to obtain pertinent information, which is what occurred in this incident.”Officers pulled over a car for a traffic violation just after 10 p.m. last Friday at Mountain Street and Sunset Avenue.The young passenger ran from the car, and after police caught the fleeing child they discovered the weapon. The child was already being sought on a no-bail warrant.The boy was taken to a juvenile detention center.Brian Day contributed to this story. EVENTS & ENTERTAINMENT | FOOD & DRINK | THE ARTS | REAL ESTATE | HOME & GARDEN | WELLNESS | SOCIAL SCENE | GETAWAYS | PARENTS & KIDS HerbeautyTips From A Professional Stylist On How To Look Stunning In 2020HerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyRobert Irwin Recreates His Father’s Iconic PhotosHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyBohemian Summer: How To Wear The Boho Trend RightHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyNutritional Strategies To Ease AnxietyHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeauty7 Tips To Rejuvenate Winter Dry, Chapped LipsHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyStop Eating Read Meat (Before It’s Too Late)HerbeautyHerbeautylast_img read more

Dundon brothers deny threatening to kill

first_imgLinkedin WhatsApp Previous article‘Predator’ jailed for defiling teenage girlNext articleApplication to move drugs trial to Dublin refused admin Print Prior to Tuesday’s legal arguments and proceedings, the State and detective garda Christine Bergin added a new charge to the list of indictments against Wayne Dundon, The 33-year-old was also charged with threatening to kill Elaine Walsh, the former girlfriend of Garreth Collins on March 25, 2011 at Hyde Road. The charge was brought before the Special Criminal Court as the DPP directed that the lower courts were not suitable to deal with the case. The new matter was remanded until next week with the defence given liberty to make applications. Facebook NewsLocal NewsDundon brothers deny threatening to killBy admin – February 22, 2012 973 Email At the Courts of Criminal JusticeTHE TRIAL of two Limerick men accused of threatening to kill several members of the one family between 2010 and 2011, has been adjourned at the Special Criminal Court in Dublin, pending the release of telephone audio files from four Irish prisons including Limerick’s Mulgrave Street Prison.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up The governors of four Irish prisons; Wheatfield, Portlaoise, Cloverhill and Limerick, havel been ordered by the three judge court to release the audio files of approved telephone conversations between a brother of the accused Dundon brothers, and one of the alleged injured parties, April Collins, the 23-year-old mother of three with former partner, Gerard Dundon.30-year-old John Dundon and his brother, Wayne, (33), on trial on threats to kill and the intimidation of State witnesses in a separate court case, sat in the dock as legal argument over the disclosure of evidence was heard by the defence and prosecution senior counsels.Wayne Dundon of Lenihan Avenue, pleaded not guilty to seven counts of threatening to kill April Collins, brothers Jimmy and Gareth Collins and their mother Alice Collins, on two separate dates in September 30, 2010 and March 25, 2011. John Dundon of Hyde Avenue, pleaded not guilty to threatening to kill April Collins on April 3, 2010, and threatening to kill her mother one year later, at Hyde Road in Limerick city.Dressed in a black satin short sleeved shirt, Wayne Dundon stood for arraignment when the charges were put to him and entered a not guilty plea to each of the seven counts before the court. His brother John, dressed in a short sleeved white and blue stripped shirt, entered pleas of not guilty to the charges of threatening to kill Ms Collins and her mother. The two brothers were returned for trial to the sitting of the special criminal court in the first non paramilitary type case of its kind in the country, but just as the case opened, defence senior counsel Padraig O’Dwyer, told the three judges, Justice Paul Butler, Justice Alison Lyndsay and Justice Flannan Brennan, that he still had an issue with disclosure of evidence from the State, and sought that the matter be put back until they were furnished with all the materials.He also added that “a box of materials including DVDs, tapes and documents,” were delivered to the office of defence solicitors Madden and Finucane, “just days” before the trial was due to begin. However, Tom O’Connell SC said that this was just “another red herring” thrown in by the defence of the Dundon brothers to delay proceedings. Mr O’Dwyer, having been earlier told at a court sitting, to itemise and be specific in his requests of disclosure, sought that the audio files containing telephone conversations between April Collins and Gerard Dundon over a period from October 2010 to April 2011, be released by the governors of four prisons.  Defence counsel, Mr Padraig O’Dwyer, and counsel for the co-accused, Brian McCartney, alleged, that up to 100 of these six minute telephone conversations contained evidence that April Collins told Gerard Dundon she was “going to set up Wayne”.The court heard that the telephone calls referred to were approved by the governors of each of the prisons with the view to “keeping the peace” amongst the prisoners,”according to Tom O’Connell SC for the State.With up two dozen gardai from the Limerick division and a small number of the Dundon family and supporters, April Collins was brought to the court under the protection of three armed detectives from the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation.  Mr Justice Paul Butler addressed the court after a brief adjournment and gave both parties 24-hours to electronically distribute and review the 100 or more audio files through the DPP, adding that the court was “not happy” with the manner in which the case was proceeding.“It’s most unsatisfactory, can counsel not talk to each other, ye have had months to prepare for this case”.  The trial is expected to last at least a week. Advertisement Twitterlast_img read more

Allahabad High Court Directs ECI To Hold Bye-Elections In UP’s State Assembly Constituency ‘Suar’, Rampur Forthwith [Read Order]

first_imgNews UpdatesAllahabad High Court Directs ECI To Hold Bye-Elections In UP’s State Assembly Constituency ‘Suar’, Rampur Forthwith [Read Order] Mehal Jain23 Oct 2020 9:02 AMShare This – xThe Allahabad High Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India to start the process for holding bye-elections in Uttar Pradesh’s State Assembly Constituency, “Suar” Rampur, forthwith. “The Election Commission of India has not been able to justify as to why and under what circumstances, bye election has not been held on the aforementioned constituency despite…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?LoginThe Allahabad High Court on Thursday directed the Election Commission of India to start the process for holding bye-elections in Uttar Pradesh’s State Assembly Constituency, “Suar” Rampur, forthwith. “The Election Commission of India has not been able to justify as to why and under what circumstances, bye election has not been held on the aforementioned constituency despite the vacancy having occurred on 26.12.2019 and duly notified long back by the State Assembly on 27.02.2020”, observed Justices Shashi Kant Gupta and Pankaj Bhatia. The division bench expressed the view that the Election Commission has failed to perform its constitutional and statutory duty to hold the bye election for the aforementioned constituency within the time prescribed under Section 151A of the Representation of People’s Act, 1950. “The whole controversy in the present writ petition is with regard to not holding bye-election of UP State Assembly Constituency, ‘Suar’, Rampur, despite the seat falling vacant on 16.12.2019 and issuance of notification by the State Assembly on 27.02.2020, after the election of Mohammad Abdulla Azam Khan (son of Samajwadi Party MP Mohammad Azam Khan) from the aforesaid ‘Suar’ Assembly was declared void and consequently set aside on 16.12.2019, in an election petition, by this Court”, noted the bench. The bench recorded that being aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by this Court, Mohd Abdullah Azam Khan filed a Civil Appeal wherein notice was issued by the Apex Court. “Learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that till date no interim order has been passed by the Apex Court, staying the effect and operation of the order dated 16.12.2019, passed by this Court declaring the election of the petitioner void”, noted the bench. The contention of the petitioner, a former Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad of the said constituency, was that once the election has been set aside by the High Court in the Election Petition and no interim order has been passed and a vacancy has been duly notified by the State Assembly, there cannot be any justification for the Election Commission not to hold the elections. By not holding the elections, the Election Commission has failed to perform its constitutional duty and suppressed the voice of the people who deserve to be represented through an elected representative. In support of his contention, he referred to Section 151(A) of the RPA. “Perusal of the aforesaid section clearly indicates that a bye election for filling up any vacancy referred to in any of the sections mentioned therein shall be held within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy”, appreciated the bench. The bench did not find substance in the argument advanced in this regard. It noted that since the election of the Mohd. Abdullah has already been declared void and no interim protection granted by the Apex Court, as such, Mohd. Abdullah was neither a necessary nor a proper party in this petition, as the controversy is with regard to not holding of bye election for the aforesaid constituency within the period specified under section 151-A of the Act. The counsel for the Election Commission had further raised an objection stating that the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court without approaching the Election Commission. “This argument is also devoid of merit and is misconceived. Needless to say, the petitioner is simply asking the Election Commission to carry out its obligation to hold the bye elections as per the mandate of Section 151 A of the Act. By not holding the bye elections, the Election Commission is violating the provisions of Section 151A of the Act, as such, Election Commission is hampering the democratic process”, observed the bench, stating that the objection raised by the counsel for the Elections Commission is rejected. The Court further noted that in the present writ petition, it has been categorically stated that Mohd. Abdullah has filed an appeal challenging the order of this Court under Section 116A of the Act but he has not been granted any interim order by the Apex Court under Section 116B of the Act. The counsel for the Election Commission, while referring to Section 116-C of the Act, had contended that after deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court shall intimate the substance of the decision to the Election Commission and the Speaker or Chairman, as the case may be, of the House of Parliament or of the State Legislature concerned and as soon as may be thereafter shall send to the Election Commission an authenticated copy of the decision; and upon its receipt, the Election Commission shall forward copies thereof to the authorities to which copies of the order of the High Court were forwarded under section 106 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid position, it was sought to be submitted that no bye elections can be held during the pendency of the appeal before the Apex Court. The bench appreciated that Section 116-A of the act inter alia provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court on any question (whether of law or fact) from every order made by a High Court under section 98 or section 99. Section 116-B of the Act inter alia provides that An application may be made to the High Court for stay of operation of an order made by the High Court under section 98 or section 99, before the expiration of the time allowed for appealing therefrom and the High Court may, on sufficient cause being shown and on such terms and conditions as it may think fit, stay the operation of the order; but no application for stay shall be made to the High Court after an appeal has been preferred to the Supreme Court. Section 116-C of the Act only provides the procedure in appeal before the Apex Court and further lays down the procedure to be followed after the appeal is decided. “However, it does not in any way effect the operation and effect of section 151-A. Furthermore, there is no interim order which has been passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, despite there being a specific provision contained in Section 116-B of the Act. In the present case, it may be noted that the Apex Court has not stayed the operation and effect of the order dated 16.12.2019 passed in Election Petition No. 8 of 2017, by this Court, setting aside the election of Mohammad Abdulla Azam Khan”, observed the bench Therefore, in its considered opinion, the provisions of Section 116-C did not have any applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present petition. “The submission of the counsel for the Election Commission is also liable to be rejected in view of a clear mandate of the Act as clarified under Section 107…Clause (1) of Section 107 is clear answer to the argument of counsel for the Election Commission inasmuch it categorically provides for the date and period from when the order of the Court shall take effect from and is only subject to any interim order by the Appellate Court”, stated the bench. The bench further opined that the reliance placed on the top court judgment inElection Commission of India v. Telangana Rastra Samithi was also completely misconceived since the aforesaid judgment is clearly distinguishable and has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was noted that in the aforesaid case the Apex Court has held that Section 151-A does not pertain to vacancy/seat in respect of which election petition is pending, where relief for declaration has been sought in terms of the latter part of Section 84 of the Act, to the effect that declaration is sought he (election petitioner) may himself or any other candidate be declared duly elected. “In the case of Election Commission of India, election petition was pending before the High Court, inter alia, claiming a declaration that the petitioner be declared elected. Further, the elected candidates against whom the petition was filed, rendered their resignations during the pendency of the election petition. However, in the present case, the elections have been duly set aside by this Court after allowing the election petition. It is notable that in the election petition no relief was sought by the election petitioner for declaring himself or any other candidate, duly elected”, said the bench. Thus, it concluded that the ratio in the aforesaid judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case. “Democracy is a system of government in which a country’s political leaders are chosen by the people in regular, free, and fair elections. In a democracy, people have a choice between different candidates and parties who want the power to govern. The people are sovereign. They are the highest authority and government is based on the will of the people. The Will of people is supreme. It cannot be lightly interfered with”, remarked the bench. It asserted that the Election Commission under no circumstance can frustrate the will of the people. “This Court, which is a custodian of the Constitution cannot be a silent spectator in a case of this nature where the Election Commission has failed to exercise its powers in a manner which has the effect of destroying or making erosion in to the democratic set up, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution”, declared the bench, requiring the Commission to conduct the elections immediately. Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan was elected as Member in the UP State Legislative Assembly from Constituency ‘Suar’, District Rampur. Thereafter, an Election Petition was filed before this Court in 2017 by one Nawab Kazim Ali Khan challenging the election, alleging that Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan was less than 25 years of age and therefore he was not qualified to contest the elections in terms of Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India. The Court after hearing the parties vide judgement and order dated 16.12.2019 allowed the election petition and the election of Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan was declared void and consequently set aside and information in this regard was sent to the Registrar General of this Court, Election Commission and the Speaker of the UP Legislative Assembly. Thereafter a Notification dated 27.02.2020 was issued by the Principal Secretary, U.P. State Assembly, indicating that after passing of the order by the High Court, a vacancy has occurred on the aforesaid constituency w.e.f. 16.12.2019. Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Breaking: Writ Of Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable Against Judicial Order Of Magistrate /CWC Sending Minor Victim To Children Protection Homes:Allahabad High Court (FB)

first_imgNews UpdatesBreaking: Writ Of Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable Against Judicial Order Of Magistrate /CWC Sending Minor Victim To Children Protection Homes:Allahabad High Court (FB) Nupur Thapliyal8 March 2021 7:41 AMShare This – xA Full Bench of Allahabad High Court on Monday held that an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate or Child Welfare Committee sending victim to women protection homes/child care homes cannot be challenged or set aside in a writ of habeas corpus. Subsequently, the Bench also observed that the detention of a corpus in such child care homes cannot be treated as an illegal detention. Full…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?LoginA Full Bench of Allahabad High Court on Monday held that an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate or Child Welfare Committee sending victim to women protection homes/child care homes cannot be challenged or set aside in a writ of habeas corpus. Subsequently, the Bench also observed that the detention of a corpus in such child care homes cannot be treated as an illegal detention. Full Bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma, Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Sanjay Yadav was dealing with the reference in a habeas corpus petition seeking directions on Superintendent of Children Home (Girl) to release the minor girl namely Anchal, aged 17 years, who was allegedly illegally detained in the Children Home. The following three issues were framed to be decided by a larger bench: 1. Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable against the judicial order passed by the Magistrate or by the Child Welfare Committee appointed under Section 27 of the Act, sending the victim to Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home? 2. Whether detention of a corpus in Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home pursuant to an order (may be improper) can be termed/viewed as an illegal detention? 3. Under the Scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the welfare and safety of child in need of care and protection is the legal responsibility of the Board/Child Welfare Committee and as such, the proposition that even a minor cannot be sent to Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home against his/her wishes, is legally valid or it requires a modified approach in consonance with the object of the Act ? About the Reference An FIR was lodged by Anchal’s mother alleging that her minor daughter left the house on 15th February 2020 with the help of one Arjun and his family. When Anchal was recovered on 4th March 2020, her statement under sec. 161 CrPC was recorded wherein she alleged that she left the house out of frustration as she was beaten up by her mother and had then gone to the house of her friend, Arjun. It was also alleged that she did so out of her own free will. These statements were reiterated by her in the statement under sec. 164 CrPC.When she was produced before the CJM, Saharanpur on 13th March 2020, the police submitted that as per her High School Certificate, her age was 17 years and 20 days and therefore suitable order must be passed in regards to her custody. Subsequently, she was sent to Child development home by the learned CJM. On being produced before the Child Welfare Committee on the directions of CJM, order was passed for keeping her in the Children Home (Girl). The present habeas corpus petition was filed on being aggrieved by the said order. According to the petitioner, it was contended that once her custody was denied by her parents, she cannot be forced to be sent to Children Home against her wishes. However, the learned AGA opposed the petition by submitting that the petition was not maintainable as the impugned order was passed pursuant to the order of the Magistrate and the judicial order, right or wrong cannot be questioned/assailed in petition seeking writ of habeas corpus. The Division Bench therefore observed that if the detention in custody is as per judicial orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate or a court of competent jurisdiction, the writ of habeas corpus would not be maintainable. However after observing that the position was contradicting as held in various judgments, the Division Bench referred the issues to be dealt by a larger bench.Observation of the Full Bench On the issue of elopement of minor girls and child marriages The bench after hearing both the parties considered it necessary to make certain observations on ancillary issues, apart from the main issues framed, dealing with cases of elopement of minor girls and their recovery after which they are sent to Children Homes. Observing that there was a rise in number of habeas corpus petitions being filed by the parents/guardians or alleged husband for production of their wards or wife, who leave their parental houses in “Run away Marriages”, the Bench opined that such parents go through agony whereas the couples are on the run with husband being accused of kidnapping and/or rape. Therefore, according to Bench, in such cases the Courts are required to ensure that the person whose production is sought is not illegally detained. On perusal of Hindu Marriage Act and Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, the Bench observed that: “There appears to be a rationale and public policy in the Legislature not making marriages solemnized in breach of the statutory age, as prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Child Marriage Restraint 18 Act, void or voidable. The Legislature was conscious of the fact that if such marriages performed in contravention of the age restriction, are made void or voidable it could lead to serious consequences and exploitation of the women, who are vulnerable on account of their social and economic circumstances. Both the Acts are aimed to discourage performance of such marriages by making them punishable with imprisonment and fine, while recognizing the necessity of protecting marriages performed even though in contravention of the prescribed age as valid and subsisting.” On maintainability of writ of habeas corpus against judicial order passed by Magistrate or Child Welfare Committee While analyzing various provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Court observed that the Act is a pro child legislation providing for all remedial measures of rehabilitation and care to a child in need of care and protection. However, the Court clarified that in cases where the corpus is sent to children homes arbitrarily, then the situation may be looked into in appeal or revision. The Court observed that sec. 37 of the Act clearly provides that the Committee on being satisfied through the inquiry that the child before the Committee is a child in need of care and protection, may, on consideration of Social Investigation Report submitted by the Child Welfare Officer and taking into account the child’s wishes in case the child is sufficiently mature to take a view, pass one or more of the following orders. Therefore, according to the Bench, the framers were conscious to take due care of child’s wishes where the child is sufficiently mature to take a view. “Therefore, in such situation it cannot be presumed that in case the corpus is in Women Protection Home pursuant to an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, which is neither without jurisdiction nor illegal or perverse, keeping in mind the provisions of the J.J. Act, the detention of the corpus cannot be said to be illegal and in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Child Welfare Committee, or the Magistrate, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse of remedy of an appeal or revision provided under Sections 101 and 102 of the J.J. Act.” The Court held. Concluding that the writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable against the judicial order or an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee under the Act, the Court also observed that in the present case the age of the corpus was 17 years according to the High School Certificate and therefore once it is found that the corpus is a child within the meaning of sec. 2(12) of the Act, she would fall within the category of child in need of care and protection. “Once the order passed by the Committee placing the petitioner corpus in protection home would be within its power conferred by Section 37 of the J.J. Act then it cannot be presumed that the said order is without jurisdiction, illegal or perverse, keeping in mind the provisions of the J.J. Act and the detention of the corpus cannot be said to be illegal.” The Court observed at the outset. The Court also went ahead to observe that once corpus is minor and the girl had refused to go with her parents, then in such situation arrangement has to be made. “Her interest is paramount and before proceeding to pass order for custody of the minor, the welfare of the minor has to be kept in mind. The wish of minor and the wish/desire of girl can always be considered by the Magistrate concerned/Committee and as per her wishes/desire further follow up action be taken in accordance with law under the J.J. Act.” The bench held. Concluding the observations, the Bench thus observed: “Thus, it is evident that a writ of habeas corpus would not be maintainable, if the detention in custody is pursuant to judicial orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate or a court of competent jurisdiction or by the Child Welfare Committee. Suffice to indicate that an illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate passing an order of remand or by the Child Welfare Committee under J.J. Act cannot be treated as an illegal detention. Such an order can be cured by way of challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the order by filing an appropriate proceeding before the competent appellate or revisional forum under the statutory provisions of law but cannot be reviewed in a petition seeking writ of habeas corpus.” The Bench therefore answered the three issues in the following manner: Answer 1: If the petitioner corpus is in custody as per judicial orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate or a Court of Competent Jurisdiction or a Child Welfare Committee under the J.J. Act. Consequently, such an order passed by the Magistrate or by the Committee cannot be challenged/assailed or set aside in a writ of habeas corpus. Answer 2: An illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate or by the Child Welfare Committee appointed under Section 27 of the J.J. Act, sending the victim to Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home cannot be treated an illegal detention. Answer 3: Under the J.J. Act, the welfare and safety of child in need of care and protection is the legal responsibility of the Board/Child Welfare Committee and the Magistrate/Committee must give credence to her wishes. As per Section 37 of the J.J. Act the Committee, on being satisfied through the inquiry that the child before the Committee is a child in need of care and protection, may, on consideration of Social Investigation Report submitted by Child Welfare Officer and taking into account the child’s wishes in case the child is sufficiently mature to take a view, pass one or more of the orders mentioned in Section 37 (1) (a) to (h). Click Here To Download Judgment[Read Order]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Highland launch 30 for 30 fundraiser!

first_imgHomepage BannerNews By News Highland – February 25, 2020 Highland Radio is marking its 30th year on air by partnering up with three local charities in its ‘30 for 30’ fundraising drive.Over the year, the station will be running a number of events with a view towards raising at least €30,000 to be split between Jigsaw Donegal, Irish Wheelchair Association and Breast Centre North West.30 for 30 was launched this morning on the Nine til Noon Show:Highland Radio has many fundraising events planned throughout 2020 starting with the Big Birthday Broadcast on Friday March 13th. For more details check out highlandradio.com Twitter RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Pinterest Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic WhatsApp Pinterest Facebook Loganair’s new Derry – Liverpool air service takes off from CODA DL Debate – 24/05/21 center_img Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows Highland launch 30 for 30 fundraiser! Google+ Twitter Facebook Google+ WhatsApp Previous articleIncident room remains open after shots fired in GlentiesNext articleIFA Chair calls for a review of regulations governing dates News Highland News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th Nine til Noon Show – Listen back to Monday’s Programmelast_img read more