first_imgKodály – Karnolsky. Saint Michel Cathedral. 19 May. 02/217 83 45.Oslo Philharmonic Orchestra. Mariss Jansons: Works by Rossini; Saint-Saëns; Strauss.Palais des Beaux-Arts. 20 May. 02/507 82 00. Oro. Artiscope. Until 27 Oct. 02/735 52 12.Cimaises libres 2. Ecuries de la Maison Haute. Until 21 Dec. 02/660 49 60.Chinese exportation ceramics.Musée du Cinquantenaire. Until 31 Dec. 02/741 73 08.Derhet, Nadin, Somers.Centre Rops. Until 2 June. 02/219 66 79. Magical Gold. Musée du Cinquantenaire. Until 30 June. 02/741 73 08.Johannes Ka v. Zweizell, sculptures. L’Autre Musée.17 May-29 June. 02/640 84 37.Martial Brosin. Le Salon d’Art. 20 May – 13 June. 02/537 65 40.Claude Lévêque, photography. L’Atelier Sainte Anne.18 May – 8 June. 02/548 02 60. Molly Sweeney by Brian Friel, staged by Adrian Brine.Palais des Beaux-Arts.Until 24 May. 02/507 82 00.Louis II de Bavière, fou by Bernard Renan, staged by Jean-Claude Ide. Théâtre royal du Parc. Until 25 May. 02/512 23 39.Peaux de Chat by Alain Cofino Gomez, staged by Micheline Hardy. Le Public. Until 29 June. 0800/944 44.Saute Marquis by Georges Feydeau. Théâtre du Vaudeville. Until 26 May. 02/514 16 00. Venus & Mars performed by La Dea. Théâtre de la Balsamine. Until 25 May. 02/219 07 07.Dantons dood by Georg Büchner performed by De Trust.Koninklijke Vlaamse Schouwburg. 18-26 May. 02/217 69 37.Russian Mission performed by the Slovene National Theatre Maribor. Théâtre national.19-20 May. 02/219 07 07.La Java de Vian performed by Christian Labeau and Audrey Englebert. Botanique. 20 May. 02/226 12 11. Dong Gong, Xi Gong. Théâtre 140. 20-25 May. 02/219 07 07.De Normopaten by and with Jos Verbist and Ger Thijs. Kaaitheater-Studio’s.21 May. 02/201 59 59.De verhuizing by Chantal Akerman, staged by Jürgen Gosch with Josse de Pauw. Kaaitheater. 22-24 May.02/201 59 59.OperaA King, Riding by Klaas De Vries, performed by Schönberg Ensemble and ASKO-Ensemble conducted by Reinbert De Leeuw. Cirque Royal. 21-27 May. 02/229 12 11. Un ennemi du peuple by Henrik Ibsen, staged by Lorent Wanson. Théâtre national.Until 21 May. 02/203 53 03.Naked Man by Charles Bukowski, staged by Jean-Marie Pétiniot. Théâtre de Poche. Until 1 June. 02/649 17 27.Noces de Vent performed by the Théâtre Loyal du Trac, staged by Eric De Staercke. Espace Delvaux.Until 4 June. 02/660 49 60.Les Combustibles by Amélie Nothomb, staged by Pierre Fox. La Samaritaine. Until 29 June. 02/511 33 95. ExhibitionsNetsuke. The Royal Museums of Art and History. Parc du Cinquantenaire. Until 1 June. 02/741 73 08.Chocolate, from élitist beverage to the common bar (16th-20th centuries). Galerie de la CGER. Until 2 June. 02/228 71 68.Pablo Picasso and the “underground passages” of the Royal Palace. Place Royale. Until 2 June. 02/672 05 83.Ça tourne depuis 100 ans. Film in Belgium. Botanique. Until 16 June. 02/226 12 11.En marge du livre. Museum of Ancient Art. Until 26 May. 02/508 32 11.Marianne de Bruijne, ceramics. Vrije Universiteit van Brussel. VUB-Building M. Fondation pour l’Architecture. 24 May – 4 Oct. 02/649 02 59.DanceI was Real – Documents performed by Karas.Espace Temps. 17-20 May. 02/219 07 07.Quatuor pour la fin du temps by Messiaen. La Bellone.17-22 May. 02/219 07 07.Mozart Concert Arias. De Keersmaeker. La Monnaie. Duo Recto/Verso with Boyan Vodenitcharov, piano and Jean-Paul Dessy: Sonate en Fa Majeur by Guillaume Lekeu, cello. Musée Charlier.23 May. 02/218 53 82.Trio à Clavier de la Monnaie: Works by Alkan; Chausson. La Monnaie. 24 May. 02/229 12 11.TheatreChambre à louer la nuit by Christian de Wespin. Palace Hotel. Until 1 June. 02/673 38 99.Bravo Martine! by Laurence Bibot, staged by Nathalie Uffner. Théâtre de la Toison d’Or. Until 25 May. 02/511 08 50.La dame de chez Maxim by Georges Feydeau, staged by Dominique Haumont. Théâtre royal des Galeries. Until 19 May. 02/512 04 07.center_img Until 30 May. 02/629 23 25.L’art abstrait. Crédit communal de Belgique. Until 16 June. 02/222 45 05.Planet Earth. Royal Museumof Natural History of Belgium. Until 26 May. 02/627 42 38.Collages. Galerie Quadri.Until 25 May. 02/640 95 63.Yoshi Takahashi, sculptures. Fondation René Carcan. Bob Verschueren. Atelier 340. Until 1 July. 02/424 24 12.Creten George, paintings, drawings, L’Escale. Until 22 June. 02/343 38 75.Aloïse et le théâtre de l’univers. Maison du spectacle – La Bellone. Until 16 June. 02/513 33 33.Armand Rassenfosse, paintings. Galerie P. Derom. Until 8 June. 02/514 08 82.Francis De Bolle, paintings.Galerie A.B.C. Until 1 June. 02/511 32 53. International singing encounters. Château de la Hulpe. 20 and 21 May.02/513 00 99.Collegium Vocale conducted by Philippe Herreweghe: Works by J. Bach; J.M. Bach; J.C. Bach. Eglise des Minimes. 21 May. 02/507 82 00.Recital by Roland Lafosse, piano: Works by Koussevitsky; Bottesini; Pergolesi; Fauré; Granados; Massenet. Palais des Beaux-Arts. 21 May.02/507 82 00.Recital by Arco Baleno Quartet. Palais des Beaux-Arts. 22 May. 02/507 82 00. La chute des aveugles by Gert Hofmann, staged by Luc Van Grunderbeeck. Palais des Beaux-Arts. Until 5 June. 02/507 82 00.Mijn hondemond by Werner Schwab, staged by Theu Boermans. Koninklijke Vlaamse Schouwburg.Until 26 May. 02/217 69 37.Lady Katanga by Rudy Geldhof, staged by Roland Ravez. Théâtre de Quat’sous. Until 29 June. 02/512 10 22.Il n’y a aucun mérite à être quoi que ce soit by Marcel Marijnen. Salle des Bains.Until 19 May. 02/548 02 60. 18-23 May. 02/229 12 11.Le Bal Moderne by Michel Reillac. PARTS, Beurschouwburg, Espace Senghor, 23-25 May. 02/512 74 50.FestivalsParcours d’artistes. Commune de Saint-Gilles. Until 19 May. 02/537 04 06.KunstenFESTIVALdesArts. Performing arts – theatre, dance and music.Until 1 June. 02/219 07 07. Devotion and mysticism in 16th and 17th C. Flemish iconography. Bibliotheca Wittockiana. 21 May – 14 Oct. 02/770 53 33.Francis Tondeur, photographs. Ecuries de la Maison Haute.23 May – 9 June. 02/660 49 60.Denis Fairley, Sterck & Rozo, photos. Espace Photographique Contretype. 23 May – 8 Oct. 02/538 42 20.Gorges Deswysen, Jean-Luc De Poortere, Merab Sourviladze, John Busch, Freddy Stroff, paintings. Musée d’Art Spontané. 24 May – 22 June. 02/426 84 00.Raoul Vaneigem. Visual presentation which explores the ideas of this ‘situationist’ thinker. Until 25 May. 02/735 73 55.Hommage to Paul van Ostaijen, comics. Centre belge de la BD. Until 2 June.02/219 19 80.Musée en Bulles, comics. Musée du Cinquantenaire. Until 15 Sep. 02/741 73 08.Daniel Cornélis, Baudouin, Fabienne Gilson, Marc Van Nuffel, Azine Yassir, drawings. Art en Marge Gallery.Until 8 June. 02/511 04 11. Philippe Van Hoorebeeck, photos. Gallery. Until 19 June. 02/511 80 35.Chris Brand, calligraphy. Bibliothèque Royale Albert I. Until 21 June. 02/519 53 54.Faces of Kirghizstan, photos by Janet Whishnetsky. Galerie Verhaeren. Until 2 June. 02/673 87 17.Treasures from Jewish life.Musée Juif de Belgique. Until 13 Sept. 02/512 19 63.Aethiopia, Musée de Tervueren. Until 21 Sept. 02/769 52 11.last_img read more

Addressing concerns about periodical payments in personal injury cases

first_img The lord chancellor did, however, say the 2.5% rate could be varied if there are exceptional circumstances which justify this. Section 1(2) of the Damages Act 1996 Act states that variation can be made ‘if any party to proceedings shows that it is more appropriate in the case in question’. Inflation, as measured by the RPI since 2001 has averaged 3.16% a year; not ‘well below’ 3% as anticipated. ILGS; the temporary aberration due to lack of supply in 2001 has continued. ILGS yields have been languishing in the 1-2% range since then. Recently, yields have risen but it appears that this is due to credit crunch conditions, with increased government spending and falling inflation which are unlikely to last. Claimants cannot afford to take substantial risks in order to meet their future needs. Many who have witnessed the loss of 40% of equity values in the last 12 months will certainly not want to take those risks in future. For investments between 2001 to the end of June 2008, the real rate of return has been around 1.15% a year, significantly less than the 2.5% discount rate. The lord chancellor’s reasoning appears, with the benefit of hindsight, incorrect on several fronts. There is an urgent need to revisit the discount rate. A lower rate would give claimants a greater lump sum, which would allow investment at low risk in accordance with Wells. What needs to happen?It is now settled law that periodical payments linked to RPI for future losses which are earnings-based potentially under-compensate claimants. The 2.5% discount rate and the lord chancellor’s reasoning should be ­revisited in light of Thompstone and the economic reality: Increase on current % – +19.61% +31.83% +54.10% +68.29% Discount rate case lawThere have been two main legal challenges to the discount rate. In Warriner v Warriner [2002] EWCA Civ 18, the claimant had significant future losses and a further life expectancy of 46 years. It was argued that those factors were exceptional, requiring a reduction in the discount rate from 2.5% to 2%. The appeal court rejected the argument on the grounds that the circumstances in Warriner were not exceptional. In Cooke v United Bristol Healthcare [2003] EWCA Civ 1370, the appeal court reached a similar conclusion to Warriner but differed in its reasons. The central argument in Cooke was that care costs increased at a steeper rate than the RPI, the argument now so familiar after Thompstone. Therefore, the 2.5% discount rate is too high as claimants need a larger conventional lump sum to cover the differential between the RPI and care-related earnings. The appeal court seemed sympathetic to the issue but considered that the Cooke appeal amounted to a plain attempt to subvert the lord chancellor’s rate. However, these cases came before Thompstone had ruled on these issues fully. Nick Martin is an IFA and a partner at the Nestor Partnership. Richard Money-Kyrle is a partner at Darbys in Oxford Financial impact If RPI is 3% a year and earnings go up by 1.75% above RPI – the result would equate to a 4.75% assumed real return. Add to that the current 2.5% discount rate and the total required return is 7.25% a year. Until recently, investment in index- linked government stock (ILGS) would not support that level of return. It is also unlikely that a more risky investment portfolio would come close. Any investment return lower than 7.25% net means claimants run out of money early. The table (bottom) illustrates the lump-sum cost of a £50,000-a-year future loss, for a claimant aged 13 at trial. If the discount rate were reduced from 2.5% to 1% the damages would be 54% more. Multiplier 33.14 37.84 43.69 51.07 55.77 The Court of Appeal in Thompstone determined that periodical payments for future losses for care and case management should be linked to an earnings index which annually has historically risen by 1-2.5% higher than the RPI. Those fortunate claimants getting earnings-related periodical payments can be comfortable that the money they get for care will meet their needs for the rest of their lives. There are many more modest claims involving future losses, which are unsuited to periodical payments owing to immediate capital needs using the bulk of the award. There may be large and ongoing losses such as earnings or transport but also capital needs for accommodation and equipment. Claimants in these cases still have to rely on the lump-sum approach – this is the new battleground. The current discount rate is incorrect. If the discount rate (currently set at 2.5%) is too high and is used to calculate the multipliers used in the schedule of future losses, claimants’ damages will run out earlier than their predicted life expectancy. The assumed returns on low-risk investments of 2.5% above the RPI, upon which the current discount rate is based, are not realistic. Claimants have to take more risks with their damages to achieve that rate or accept a shortfall. It has been demonstrable for some time that the basis of the 2.5% rate is optimistic and the recent financial meltdown highlighted this. On the basis of the reality of returns, the discount rate should be no more than 1.5% and possibly as low as 1% – but that would mean a huge increase in damages for claimants. i) The rate of inflation in future was expected to stay well below 3%; ii) High demand for ILGS and the scarcity of supply has led to the yields being artificially low, but this is temporary; and iii) He had applied the legal principles laid down in Wells v Wells [1999] 1 AC 345. Lump sum amount (£) £1, 657, 000 £1, 892, 000 £2, 184, 000 £2, 553, 000 £2, 788, 500 Discount rate Current 2.5% At 2% At 1.5% At 1% At 0.75% Setting the discount rateThe discount rate of 2.5% set by the lord chancellor in June 2001 has not been changed since. It is based on the claimant investing the lump-sum damages into ILGS and achieving a 2.5% a year real return (2.5% above RPI). Later in 2001, the lord chancellor reconsidered his decision. He did not change the rate but provided reasons and explained why he chose to round up to 2.5% rather than down. His reasons were: Another chance?The financial analysis in the Thompstone periodical payment orders cases showed that RPI is inappropriate for the indexing of damages for future earnings-based losses. On that basis, a discount rate based on it must also be wrong. Large lump-sum settlements simply may not work and lawyers must advise their clients as to the risks. Expert advice is vital to ensure that the flaws of the current discount rate are clearly assessed and explained. Even in larger cases suited to earnings periodical payment orders the discount rate affects recoverable damages as all multipliers are based on it. Where there are already shortfalls between what must be spent and what the claimant can recover, such as Roberts v Johnstone calculations for housing, correcting the discount rate is even more important. Therefore, the incorrect and high discount rate infects the whole system and disadvantages injured claimants. The lord chancellor should urgently review current economic and investment conditions and reconsider the discount rate. last_img read more

Gidi Power Asempa fm Golden Bin awards :Musah Kasse tops all

first_imgAshgold striker Musah Kasse, was adjudged the overall worst player of the 2011/12 season on Tuesday in the Gidi Power Asempa FM Golden Bin Awards maiden edition.Striker Musah Kasse beats off competition from goalkeeper Stephen Ahorlu and midfielder Francis Koufie. Musah won the ultimate as a result of a huge transfer fee of GHC 90,000 and a monthly salary of GHC 1200, from Stade de Malian (Mali) to Ashgold, due to his exploits with the Malian CHAN team, but he ended up as a bench warmer at Ashgold throughout the season.The award winners were selected through the station’s various reporters who traveled the length and breadth of this country to cover the Glo premier league matches for the 2011-2012 season.A technical committee was set up on these awards and with the involvement of the cherished listeners of the station by text to Asempa FM’s short code.These awards are to encourage winners improve in their field of endeavors in the upcoming seasons. The entire team of Asempa Sports wishes all contributors well for their massive support .Other winners: Worst Goalkeeper1. Stephen Ahorlu (Wassaman)Worst Defender1. Samuel Kyere (Chelsea)Worst Coach2. Helbert Addo (Wassaman)Worst C.E.O.3.Yakubu Moro (Arsenal)Worst Referee1. Ali Musa Plato Worst Striker3. Musa Kasse (Ashgold)Worst Behaved Centre3. Cape Coast (Dwarfs)Worse Player of the Season2. Mousa Kasse – AshgoldOther officials were also given special awards:Fred Crenstil (C.E.O Hearts of Oak)Vincent Sowah Odotei (CEO King Faisal FC)George Quansah (Welfare Officer U-20)Jones Abu AlhassanOrlando WellingtonKofi ManuMicky Charleslast_img read more

Mike Tyson biting Holyfield’s ear off, Tyson Fury’s drugs axe and Saunders video shame: Nine boxers who have been banned

first_img Source: Boxing – thesun.co.uk DayZ Amazing Mods ~ More Cars, More Guns, More Gore! Funny Moments Of Football Football player touch female referee s breast! Animals are so funny that you can die of laughter BOXING is often a majestic, fascinating sport but it does come with its dark side.But several big names have been told to stay away from the ring while they clean up their act – having major impact on world title fights across the divisions.Mike Tyson biting Evander Holyfield remains one of the most shocking moments in boxing historyCredit: AFP – GettyThat has led to several big names being told to stay away from the ring while they clean up their act, having a major impact on world title fights across the divisions.Here, SunSport delves into the stories behind boxing’s biggest bans – from Muhammad Ali’s war vow to Mike Tyson’s crunching bite.Mike TysonWhen Mike Tyson fought Evander Holyfield in November 1996, the tagline was simply “Finally”, such was the anticipation of seeing the two champions square off in the ring.Seven months later, the pair met again for a rematch as Tyson sought to avenge his 11th-round TKO defeat – only the second of his career.The New York native went into the fight angered by what he perceived to be deliberate headbutts from his opponent during the first meeting.And, once again, Holyfield’s head connected with Tyson while dodging a right-hander in the second round.Referee Mills Lane put it down as accidental and Tyson sensationally attempted to enter the next round without his mouthguard – suggesting what he was about to do was absolutely premeditated.Ordered to put it back in, he nonetheless made for Holyfield’s ear within seconds, biting off a chunk of his rival during a clinch.The damage to Holyfield’s ear was clear for all to seeCredit: ReutersThat sent Holyfield hopping around the canvas in sheer agony, heading back to his corner with a bloodied ear for a time-out and receiving a stunning shove from Tyson while his back was turned.A lengthy stoppage saw only two points deducted from the defending WBA champion before he launched another bite in the fifth round, incurring a disqualification.The Nevada State Athletic Commission handed down a £2.4million fine and banned Tyson from fighting, leading to over a year out of the ring.Later, he admitted it was indeed a retaliation for the headbutts before he apologising in 2009 – one which his opponent accepted.Muhammad AliNot every banned boxer had necessarily done something wrong, by today’s standards.In the mid-1960s, the US war with Vietnam saw Muhammad Ali drafted into the army having previously registered for conscription.Famously, the boxer remarked “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong” and refused to join up on the grounds of his religious beliefs and general opposition to the war.Convicted of a federal offence, the boxing world reacted by stripping Ali of his licenses to fight while he also had his passport removed.In 1968, he said: “I am not allowed to work in America and I’m not allowed to leave America. I’m just about broke.”Ali was already an outspoken superstar by this point, hence the reaction from the American establishment, with a 29-0 record and Olympic gold medal to his name.Effectively banned from boxing at the age of 25, the legend returned to the ring just before his 29th birthday to defeat Jerry Quarry in 1970.But arguably more important was that, on June 28, 1971, the US Supreme Court overturned his conviction for draft evasion – a crime coming with a five-year prison sentenced that he never served.Tyson FuryTyson Fury was on top of the world after a shock win over Wladimir Klitschko in November 2015.Holding the unified belts of the heavyweight division, the Gypsy King never got to defend them with the Ukrainian star ready for a rematch the following year.Suffering from mental health issues and gaining excessive weight, Fury then tested positive for cocaine.Fury’s weight ballooned as he battled personal issuesCredit: News Group Newspapers LtdHe told Rolling Stone soon after: “I’ve had total enough of it. Never mind cocaine. I just didn’t care. I don’t want to live anymore. So cocaine is a little minor thing compared to not wanting to live anymore.”Also being investigated by UK Anti-Doping for the discovery of banned substance nandrolone in a previous test, Fury’s license was suspended ahead of a protracted and expensive investigation.Finally returning in June 2018, the Manchester-born fighter would later re-announce himself with a stunning draw against WBC champ Deontay Wilder before downing him in seven rounds earlier this year to complete one of boxing’s greatest comebacks. Canelo AlvarezMexican superstar Canelo is one of global sport’s biggest earners but he was forced to spend a year out of the ring following two failed drugs tests.The asthma prescription drug clenbuterol was detected in his samples.The “surprised and bothered” fighter blamed contaminated meat.Backdated to February 2018, the consequence was a 12-month ban for Canelo.That meant a planned rematch with Gennady Golovkin had to be put off until almost a year to the day after their draw the previous September.Canelo’s long stretch without a fight might have given the Kazakh star the upper hand yet he came through to claim a controversial majority decision win after 12 rounds in Las Vegas.Jarrell MillerIn terms of knock-on effect throughout the boxing world, the denial of Jarrell Miller’s boxing license and six-month WBA ban in February 2019 is right up there.Set to fight Anthony Joshua for the Brit’s Stateside debut, two positive tests for three different banned substances saw him cast aside and Andy Ruiz Jr elevated to the top of the card.What happened next was one of the biggest upsets in heavyweight history, setting back AJ’s no longer undefeated career and sending shockwaves through the division.Joshua vs Miller might have had a very different outcome to Joshua vs Ruiz JrCredit: Getty Images – GettyThe 31-year-old is still picking up the pieces of a shattered career and hasn’t fought since November 2018.Initially stating the first adverse finding in a drugs test to be wrong, Miller later came out and admitted his error when the B sample also came up positive.He said: “I messed up. There were a lot of ways to handle the situation, I handled it wrongly and I’m paying a price for it.”Shannon BriggsWith a career spanning 68 fights and almost three decades, Briggs fell foul of a six-month WBA ban in 2017 when plotting a bout against fellow veteran Fres Oquendo.The 48-year-old harbours dreams of becoming the world’s oldest heavyweight champion, a record held by a 45-year-old George Foreman.But a drugs test ahead of the fight came back with a hugely abnormal testosterone reading.World Anti-Doping guidelines allow for a testosterone to epitestosterone ratio of 4 to 1, and Briggs’ was a massive 7.89 to 1, setting back his ambitions and pushing the American into considering a stint in bare knuckle boxing.Billy Joe SaundersThe most recent case of a banned boxer is Billy Joe Saunders, whose loss of his boxing license was more needlessly self-inflicted than most.A shocking video of the middleweight emerged teaching boxing tips to men who want to hit their wives or girlfriends, leading to a major backlash and the suspension of his license pending appeal.Billy Joe Saunders apologises for his social media post that appeared to condone domestic violenceIt was far from the 30-year-old’s first example of poor decision making, having previously been caught filming himself while speeding down a motorway and appearing to taunt a drug addict with the offer of money in exchange for sexual acts.The undefeated Saunders has therefore released almost as many apologies as he has left hooks and a career-defining fight with Canelo is now on ice.Dillian WhyteExactly how Dillian Whyte’s career would have panned out had he not been banned for two years after the stimulant Methylhexaneamine was found in his blood is a good debate to have.The promising heavyweight was pinned for not properly checking the ingredients of an over the counter supplement, leading to a suspension between October 2012 and 2014.Making up for lost time, Whyte has since won all his professional contests bar a 2015 defeat to Joshua.And the pair could be drawn together once more with Whyte still battling to become a mandatory challenger for a world title belt.Shane Mosley‘Sugar’ has fought some of the world’s top boxers, from Floyd Mayweather to Canelo, Manny Pacquiao and Oscar De La Hoya.But his career was blighted by allegations he knowingly took performance enhancing drugs when US investigators looked into California laboratory BALCO.These substances were not discovered in Mosley’s tests as he claimed a unanimous points victory over De La Hoya in September 2003.That meant he avoided an official ban. Court transcripts from the BALCO investigation were subsequently reported by New York Times to show the fighter admitting to a grand jury that he injected himself with the doping agent EPO before the bout.Mike Tyson reveals fantasy dream fight would have been to face undefeated Floyd Mayweather and ‘I’d fight dirty’ center_img Top 5 Best Budget Hotels In Dubai under AED 400 a night. Best caption wins🏆 Credit @4×4 Most awesome bullfighting festival Real or Fake? Shark Attacks Helicopterlast_img read more