Author: Admin

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Viktor Schreckengost, the father of industrial design and creator of the Jazz Bowl, an iconic piece of Jazz Age art designed for Eleanor Roosevelt during his association with Cowan Pottery died yesterday. He was 101.

Schreckengost was born on June 26, 1906 in Sebring, Ohio, United States.

Schreckengost’s peers included the far more famous designers Raymond Loewy and Norman Bel Geddes.

In 2000, the Cleveland Museum of Art curated the first ever retrospective of Schreckengost’s work. Stunning in scope, the exhibition included sculpture, pottery, dinnerware, drawings, and paintings.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Actor Matt Smith will be the next to portray the Doctor on the BBC television program Doctor Who. Smith will be the eleventh incarnation of the Doctor, taking over from actor David Tennant who will end his time with the series after filming four editions of the program through 2009. The Doctor comes from a race of Timelords, and has the ability to “regenerate” and change appearance when his health is failing. William Hartnell was the first actor to play the Doctor, from 1963–1966. Smith will become the new occupant of the Doctor’s time machine and spacecraft the “TARDIS” in 2010.

John Harper, founder of the Scarborough and Ryedale Astronomical Society and a fan of the series, called the decision to cast 26-year-old Smith in the role “wonderful”. MP for Scarborough Robert Goodwill, also a fan of the program, told the Scarborough Evening News: “David Tennant will be a very hard act to follow, but I’m optimistic that the new Doctor will be just as good.”

Matt Smith, 26, portrayed researcher Danny Foster on the political drama Party Animals, which aired on BBC Two in 2007. Fellow actor Andrew Buchan from Party Animals told The Guardian: “It’s a sublime bit of casting. He’s got that huge hair, a twinkle in his eye — Matt’s the king of geek chic. He is possibly going to be one of the best Doctors we’ve ever had.”

After a back injury got in the way of Smith’s goal of becoming a footballer, his drama teacher Jerry Hardingham at Northampton School for Boys encouraged him to pursue acting. Though Smith did not audition, Hardingham cast him in a school production of the play Twelve Angry Men. Hardingham later convinced Smith to join the National Youth Theatre, and he landed the lead role in the play Murder in the Cathedral, performing before members of the British Royal Family and other VIPs at the Westminster Cathedral.

David Tennant, 37, has portrayed the Doctor on Doctor Who since taking over for Christopher Eccleston in 2005. A major feature of his character’s stories involved a romantic interest in his companion in the TARDIS, Rose, played by actress Billie Piper.

Tennant announced his exit from the program on October 29, 2008, at the National Television Awards in the United Kingdom, during his speech accepting the outstanding drama performance award at the program. Doctor Who was recognized with the award for most popular drama program.

“I love this part, and I love this show so much that if I don’t take a deep breath and move on now I never will, and you’ll be wheeling me out of the Tardis in my bath chair,” said Tennant in his address to the audience in attendance at the Royal Albert Hall. He was previously recognized at the National Television Awards for his role in Doctor Who with the award for most popular actor, in 2006 and 2007.

Tennant is currently performing the lead role in Hamlet with the Royal Shakespeare Company, and his engagement at the Novello Theatre in Westminster, London is set to end on January 10. He portrayed Hamlet 60 times with the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford-upon-Avon prior to the production’s move to London.

The time is 18:00 (UTC) on June 2nd, 2006, and this is Audio Wikinews News Briefs.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

In Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, the jury is deliberating in the case of Curt Dagenais, charged in the July 2006 shooting deaths of two Saskatchewan RCMP officers. Justice Gerald Allbright, in his instructions to the sequestered jury, has advised the jurors that they may consider the charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter or discharging a firearm with intent to wound or endanger life, but not the charge of first-degree murder the Crown has sought.

Dagenais has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of self defense. He is charged with two counts first degree murder and one count of attempted murder in the Spiritwood Incident.

Constable Michelle Knopp survived the shoot-out which erupted after a high speed chase ended about 30 kilometers (19 miles) from Spiritwood, Saskatchewan near Mildred. Constables Marc Bourdages and Robin Cameron died about one week following the shoot out which occurred July 7, 2006.

Defense lawyer Bill Roe argued self defense for Dagenais, saying he shot “in a blind panic” when RCMP officers fired upon him.

Crown prosecutor Al Johnston asserted that Dagenais shot first. Johnston asserted that Dagenais cannot be believed, that his story is presented so he can get away with murder.

The incident began with a dispute within the Dagenais family. The defendant supported his father Arthur Dagenais, and his sister supported the mother Elise Dagenais, during a divorce; his mother was to receive half the family farm from the divorce which she had previously allocated to Dagenais. Dagenais tried to speak to his mother, but the sister intervened.

Dagenais reported going to the local RCMP detachment and spoke with Constable Cameron. Constable Knopp informed Dagenais that the RCMP could not be involved in a family affair.

After Dagenais’ sister and mother went to the police, the three constables went to charge Dagenais with assault.

This is where the stories from the RCMP and Dagenais diverge. Dagenais claims that Cameron made the intial approach to arrest him and smashed his truck window, at which point Dagenais became scared and sped away from the situation. The RCMP state that Dagenais started to drive away from the situation which meant that Cameron was hit by the truck’s rear view mirror. Cameron retaliated by breaking the window. Officers Cameron and Bourdages followed the departing Dagenais in a police truck; Knopp followed in a SUV.

During the chase police sideswiped Dagenais’ truck. The RCMP say that Dagenais was unpredictable and that he had rammed their vehicle. The RCMP tried prevent Dagenais from reaching his father’s farm house fearing that there were firearms there.

There is a difference in accounts of the chase and gun battle. Dagenais claims the RCMP fired upon him first, and he fired back in self defence fearing for his life.

The chase ended after RCMP rammed into the side of Dagenais’ stopped truck. Because Dagenais was already stopped, according to collision reconstruction expert, there was time for Dagenais to shoot at the RCMP truck. A firearm expert studying trajectories of the bullets found that one of the rounds fired from Daganais’ .30-30 Winchester entered the police vehicle at a different angle than other shots fired at the truck after the collision.

Dagenais has also reported holes in his truck door.

Dagenais claims when he heard the second vehicle drive up, there was more gun fire so he returned shots himself.

Knopp testifed that she arrived at the scene in the second vehicle her ear was struck by a fragment from bullet fire. She said when she arrived Daganais fired first and that Bourdages and Cameron were already badly wounded.

Firearms experts established that Dagenais fired eight times, and the RCMP six times during the gunfight.

During the trial evidence was presented that Dagenais had previously been assaulted by police. The RCMP had identified Daganais as a police hater. There had been previous altercations between the RCMP, Daganais and his father. Dagenais had filed prior lawsuits against the RCMP.

Following the incident, Dagenias fled the scene hiding in the woods of the countryside. 200 RCMP engaged in a massive manhunt. Dagenais turned himself in July 18, 2006.

The audio from the RCMP radio was submitted as evidence, and the dispatcher had opened all the channels associated with the Shellbrook area. There is no reporting of gunfire recorded on the audio.

There was no videotape in the onboard video camera installed in Knopp’s SUV when evidence was gathered two days following the shooting. A photograph of three VHS tapes in Knopp’s vehicle has been presented. Constable Kenneth Palen after viewing a tape, testified he was instructed not to keep the videotape found on the passenger seat of the SUV and it was destroyed in the garbage.

Friday, November 20, 2009

On Thursday, ten of those on board British Airways Flight 38 launched a case against Boeing over the accident before a court in Illinois. They are suing over an alleged flawed design that allowed an ice buildup to bring the 777 jet down at London’s Heathrow Airport. Scottish advocate Peter Macdonald spoke to Wikinews, commenting on the case and explaining the surrounding legislation. He has experience of litigating aviation accidents.

Although investigations are ongoing, the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) has issued interim reports indicating ice buildup on an engine component. As the jet passed over Siberia on its journey from Beijing, China it encountered significantly reduced temperatures. The AAIB has determined that the fuel was at a temperature below 0°C for an unusually long duration. This is believed to have caused water in the fuel — which met all relevant international standards — to have frozen into crystals.

A build-up of ice developed on a component called the fuel/oil heat exchanger. This restricted the flow of fuel to the engine, resulting in an “uncommanded engine rollback” — a loss of power — on approach for landing. Investigators initially struggled to produce enough ice under test conditions but later discovered that at high concentration, fuel can form ice at very low temperatures in enough quantity to seriously restrict fuel flow. This does not occur when fuel demand is lower, as the hot oil then becomes sufficient to entirely melt the ice. It was only when extra fuel was pumped in from the tanks for the landing that the crystals became a problem. The fuel/oil heat exchanger is a dual purpose part designed to simultaneously melt fuel ice and cool down engine oil by passing oil pipes through the fuel flow.

The crew of the aircraft were praised for their handling of the emergency, avoiding the airport’s perimeter fence and nearby houses to crash land short of the runway. None of the 136 passengers and 16 crew were killed but some of those suffered serious injuries, including broken bones and facial injuries. Some were left unable to fly and there were cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The crash was triggered by highly unusual circumstances; the first AAIB report noted that cold fuel behaving in this manner was an “apparently hitherto unknown phenomenon.” As part of the investigation, data of 141,000 flights of 777s equipped with the engine model involved — the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 — was reviewed without finding any relevant circumstance similar to the accident flight, although there was later a similar incident in the United States in which the aircraft continued safely after repowering one engine; the second did not lose power.

Given the circumstances surrounding the case, Wikinews asked Peter Macdonald if the plaintiffs intended to prove that Boeing knew or should have known the Rolls-Royce powerplant was dangerously defective by design. “I rather suspect that there may be product liability legislation in place in whichever US jurisdiction is being used,” Macdonald explained. “Such statutes normally do not require proof of fault, nor do they require proof of knowledge. All that you have to show is that there was a defect in the product which caused the losses concerned… If I am correct that it is a product liability suit, then the fact that this is the first such accident matters not.”

Macdonald went on to discuss the international legislation and how it interacts to the plaintiffs and the three companies involved — Boeing, British Airways and Rolls-Royce. Only Boeing is currently named in an action over the case. “There are several reasons why the plaintiffs will wish to sue Boeing in the States,” he said. “Were the plaintiffs to seek redress in a court in the United Kingdom, it is unlikely that the relevant part of Boeing would be subject to jurisdiction here.” He also pointed out that “US damages are generally higher than English damages.”

“As to whether Boeing should settle, that all depends upon the basis of the action. If it is a fault [negligence] based action, they will be able to defend it. If fault is not needed, that is why they would want the action dismissed, forcing litigation in the UK.” In the UK, a product liability suit “would ordinarily be directed against the importers, i.e. British Airways… It would be a simple matter to sue BA here [the UK] for the physical injuries and their financial consequences,” said Macdonald. “That leaves RR [Rolls-Royce]. I assume that the engine was made in the UK. They would be liable for a defect in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, Part I.” This piece of UK-wide legislation states that “where any damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product [the manufacturer] shall be liable for the damage.” Damage includes injuries.

US courts decide international jurisdictional issues under the Jones Act, passed as a result of Bhopal litigation, “which makes it much more difficult for a foreigner to sue in the US if the accident did not happen there… My restricted understanding of that is that it is likely that it would be difficult to remove an action from a US court where the aircraft was made in the US.” He further pointed out that the court would require there to be an alternative court with jurisdiction over the issue. “It may well be that the relevant part of the Boeing group is not subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts… I have seen cases where it was made a condition of the grant of an order under the Jones Act that the defendants would submit to the jurisdiction of a court in Scotland and that they would not take a plea of time bar in the even that an action was raised within three months of the court order.”

He then addressed the international law with regards to what could be claimed for against air carriers such as BA. In a previous case against the same airline, Abnett v British Airways, the House of Lords ruled in 1997 “that the only remedy for an injured passenger on an international flight is to sue under the Warsaw Convention, Article 17, incorporated into our law by the Carriage by Air Act, 1961.” The Warsaw Convention governs liability for international commercial airlines. At the time, the House of Lords was the highest court of appeal in the UK, although it was recently replaced by the Supreme Court. The Abnett case referred to British Airways Flight 149, in which Iraq captured the aircraft and occupants when it landed in Kuwait hours after Iraq invaded in 1990. Peter Macdonald represented Abnett in this case.

The Convention “provides a remedy for “bodily injury”. Interestingly, the term only appeared in the final draft of the Warsaw Convention. There is no mention of the term in the minutes of the many sessions which lead up to the final draft. It was produced overnight and signed later that day.” This term creates difficulties in claiming for mental problems such as the fear of flying or PTSD, although Macdonald points out that “there is a large amount of medical literature which details physical and chemical changes in the brains of people who are suffering from PTSD.”

In King v Bristow Helicopters, heard before the House of Lords in 2002 “held that PTSD was not a “bodily injury”, but expressly left the door open for someone to try to prove that what is known as PTSD is the manifestation of physical changes in the brain which have been brought about by the trauma. Such a litigation is pending in Scotland.” Macdonald is acting in this case.

Actions against Boeing are not bound in this way, as the Warsaw Convention only applies to airlines, making the States an attractive place to sue due to the issues with demonstrating jurisdiction against the relevant part of the Boeing group in the UK. Another reason why the plaintiffs would prefer to sue in America is that in the UK “there would be liability [for BA], and that would be subject to a damages cap. An action in the US [against any defendant] would probably have the same cap, but is likely to award damages more generously in the event that the cap is not reached.”

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Mogadishu, capital of Somalia, is witnessing a heavy fighting over the past four days. Almost 100 people have died and 200 have been wounded in the clashes, as health officials said yesterday. The battle between the Islamic Court Union and the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism has centered on the northern neighborhood of Sii-Sii. Many of the casualties are civilians caught in the crossfire. There was a temporary truce, but that did not last long.

Islamic militia leader Sheikh Sharif Ahmed called a unilateral truce on Tuesday in response to appeals from those affected by the violence. But his opponents said the truce was called because of a lack of ammunition. The warlords’ alliance spokesman Hussein Gutale Rageh said they would only accept the ceasefire if their rivals withdrew from territory they have occupied during the fighting.

The fighting started late on Sunday, when an alliance of warlords attacked the vehicle of a group allied to the Islamic courts, according to eyewitnesses.

This is the second round of the city’s most serious fighting in a decade. In March 2006, clashes between the two sides killed at least 90 people.

The United Nations has appealed to both sides to halt the clashes. UN special representative for Somalia, Francois Lonseny Fall, appealed today for the rival militias to end the hostilities, saying they had created fear and chaos for civilians caught in the crossfire.

“The indiscriminate use of heavy machine guns, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and artillery in and between urban areas is unacceptable,” said Francois Fall.

Somalia has not had an effective national authority for 15 years after the ousting of longtime dictator President Siad Barre in 1991. A UN-backed transitional government has based itself in the central city of Baidoa, but has so far failed to assert itself elsewhere.

Islamic fundamentalists have portrayed themselves as an alternative capable of bringing order and peace, but they have not hesitated to use force and have allegedly linked up with al-Qaeda terrorists. The Islamic courts have restored order to some parts of the city by providing justice under Sharia – Islamic law. The courts say the warlords alliance is a pawn of the United States.

Last week, Somalia President Abdullahi Yusuf accused the US of funding the coalition of warlords. The US government says it does support efforts to restore stability to Somalia but refuses to give details on who it backs and how. The alliance of warlords recently created the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism. It has an anti-terror task force based in nearby Djibouti. It accuses the Islamic courts of sheltering foreign al-Qaeda leaders.