West Indies Cricket Fans

5.1 Johnson to Dilshan, FOUR, overpitched from Mitch as this one is driven through long off quite comfortably for a boundary
5.2 Johnson to Dilshan, FOUR, and again, this time straighter from Dilshan, as he pays the price once more for delivering in the slot
5.3 Johnson to Dilshan, FOUR, makes it three in a row as he raises the roof at the SCG with a heave to this fuller delivery on off, sending this high over deep midwicket before it landed at the rope after a couple of bounces
5.4 Johnson to Dilshan, FOUR, Dilshan is taking on Mitchell at the SCG as he pulls this shortish length from the left-arm pacer over backward square to make it four in four. Really got that one out of the screws.
5.5 Johnson to Dilshan, FOUR, Mitchell is being taken to the cleaners here as he smokes away this overpitched length outside off through the covers for a boundary. Has already taken 20 from the over, and there is still a delivery to go. Mitchell just turns back and heads to his bowling mark
5.6 Johnson to Dilshan, FOUR, Dilshan makes it six in a row as he initially looked to play at this fuller delivery before noticing the change of pace to adjust his shot as he pushed at the length to get it away to the extra-cover boundary. The outfield makes sure this reaches the target in the end

howzdat Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:26 pm wrote:According to his record collection, first there was Marvin Gaye~Got to give it up and then one day it might also include robin thicke feat. t.i. & pharrell blurred lines.

Got it Good, so as the youth dem does say nowadays, "Jus fess up, man" Or do you think we're thicko's

PS. Do they, whoever they may be, think we were born yesterday Ah well, better mek them know that I for one been listening to music since before my first breath.

So Marvin, over to you and no haggling brother.

4796

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams have been ordered to pay $7.3 million dollars in damages to Marvin Gaye’s estate after losing a copyright infringement trial. A jury has found the music duo guilty of copying Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up” for their 2013 smash hit “Blurred Lines”.

Re-posted here from: http://consequenceofsound.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; all rights of originator respected.
The verdict was handed down by an eight-person jury following a week-long trial. The ruling comes after nearly two years of legal drama, including Thicke’s last-ditch efforts to pin the blame on Williams. During the proceedings, Thicke sang a selection of songs by the likes of U2, The Beatles, and Michael Jackson from the witness stand to illustrate how tracks could have similar chord progressions and yet still sound different. To counter those claims, prosecutors brought up numerous interviews in which Thicke and Williams mention Gaye directly, including several where Thicke specifically cited “Got to Give It Up” and Williams claimed he was “trying to pretend” he was the Motown legend as he wrote the track.

For his part, Williams was asked to perform the bass line from both songs during the trial, after which he admitted there was a similarity when played side-by-side. Still, Williams attempted to argue that the songs shared “vibe”, and that “Blurred Lines” was not a direct copy. “The last thing you want to do as a creator is take something of someone else’s when you love him,” he was quoted as saying.

The jury clearly disagreed. T.I. and Star Trak/Interscope records were found harmless, and will not be part of the $7.3 million payment.

CHELSEA will look to strengthen their defensive ranks with a £40m bid for Real Madrid star Raphael Varane. Sources in Spain claim Jose Mourinho is seriously questioning his defensive options and will renew his efforts to sign Varane in the summer.
Chelsea conceded two goals from set-pieces in Wednesday night's Champions League clash, with the ability of Gary Cahill seriously under question.
Manchester United are also in the running to sign the French international - but the influence of Mourinho could prove pivotal when the transfer window reopens.
Mourinho brought Varane to the Bernabeu in 2011, so may invariably contribute to his next destination.

The 21-year-old is already known to be displeased with his lack of first-team action, and is irked by his 'luxury substitute' status. And Pepe's recently signed contract extension will only fast-track Varane's decision to seriously assess his future.

UNA-UK wrote to the UK government in May 2010, asking it to reconsider its position on the MPA:

UNA-UK is writing to express its concerns regarding the decision announced on 1 April 2010 to establish a ‘no-take’ Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the British Indian Ocean Territory, which includes the Chagos Islands.

While UNA-UK welcomes the efforts to protect the Chagos archipelago and notes that in his announcement, former Foreign Secretary David Miliband described the decision as “without prejudice to the outcome of the current, pending proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)”, we are disappointed that neither his statement nor the consultation document made reference to the representations by members of the Chagossian diaspora for recognition of their ‘right to return’.

The UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors implementation of the UK’s obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, has twice recommended (most recently in 2008) that the UK should uphold the right of the Chagos Islanders to return. This position was echoed in a 2008 Foreign Affairs Select Committee Report on Overseas Territories, and reiterated several times by MPs and Lords from the three main political parties in the 6 April parliamentary debates.

The UK government has long recognised the plight of the Chagossians. Former FCO Minister Chris Bryant repeatedly stated during the 6 April Commons debate how much the UK regrets the ‘shameful’ treatment of the Chagossians in the 1960s and 1970s. In a letter to the UK Chagos Support Association just prior to the general election, the new Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said that “if elected to serve as the next British government, we will work to ensure a fair settlement of this long-standing dispute”. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg also made a strong statement, saying “[the Liberal Democrats] have actively supported [the Chagossian] cause in the past and we will continue to aid their campaign to see justice done. We have been appalled that the [previous] government has wasted time, money and effort defending the indefensible”.

UNA-UK believes that the environmental and human rights objectives pertaining to Chagos are not necessarily incompatible, and that it is vital to ensure that the Chagossians are fully involved in the process of fleshing out the details of the MPA.

We therefore urge the new UK government to:

work with the Chagossians (and all other relevant parties) on an MPA solution that takes into account their right to self-determination as set out in the two International Covenants and the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and simultaneously provides adequate protection for a very precious marine ecosystem; consider, once the outcome of the ECHR decision is known, the recommendations made by the UN Human Rights Committee on the right of Chagossians to return; and report on the situation in the UK’s next periodic report to the UN Human Rights Committee.

http://www.una.org.uk/news/13/02/icj-he ... lands-case" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UN ruling raises hope of return for exiled Chagos islanders
Britain acted illegally, say judges in scathing ruling that upholds Mauritius’s rights and restricts US ability to expand ‘rendition’ air base on Diego Garcia

Britain acted illegally in the way it has exercised territorial control over the Chagos Islands, a UN tribunal has ruled, raising questions over the UK’s claim to sovereignty and offering hope of return to hundreds of evicted islanders.

In a withering judgment, the UK is accused of creating a marine protected area (MPA) to suit its electoral timetable, snubbing the rights of its former colony Mauritius and cosying up to the United States, which has a key military base – allegedly used for the rendition of terrorist suspects – on the largest island, Diego Garcia.

The ruling effectively throws into doubt the UK’s assertion of absolute ownership, restricts the Americans’ ability to expand their facility without Mauritian compliance and boosts the chances of exiled Chagossians being able to return to their homeland.

A dissenting opinion from two of the five judges on the permanent court of arbitration at The Hague is even more scathing, stating that “British and American defence interests were put above Mauritius’s rights” both in 1965 when the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was established and in 2010 when the marine zone, which involves a ban on fishing, was set up.

The ruling, which was made under the 1982 United Nations convention on the law of the sea to which the UK is a signatory, is binding. It torpedoes the status of the MPA and orders the UK and Mauritius to renegotiate. By coincidence, the government this week declared another marine protected area around Pitcairn Island in the southern Pacific.

The five-judge panel found that the creation of the MPA, announced by the former foreign secretary David Miliband in the final months of the last Labour government, breached its obligations to consult nearby Mauritius and illegally deprived it of fishing rights.

The US was “consulted in a timely manner and provided with information”, all five judges state, whereas a meeting with Mauritius in 2009 reminded the tribunal “of ships passing in the night, in which neither side fully engaged with the other regarding fishing rights or the proposal for the MPA”.

The government of Mauritius will view the judgment as a resounding victory, vindication of its ultimate right to sovereignty over the archipelago and confirmation that it must be consulted about future developments on the islands.

The UK has promised to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius when they are no longer needed for defence purposes.

Mauritius has argued that the UK illegally detached the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 – before the country was given its independence – contrary to UN general assembly resolution 1514, which specifically banned the breakup of colonies prior to independence.

The judgment declares: “The United Kingdom’s undertaking to return the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius gives Mauritius an interest in significant decisions that bear upon the possible future uses of the archipelago. Mauritius’ interest is not simply in the eventual return of Chagos archipelago, but also in the condition in which the archipelago will be returned.”

Relations between the UK, Mauritius and the Chagossians have been fraught ever since the 1,500 islanders were removed to make way for the US base in 1971.

The judgment refers to a disputed US telegram that records a meeting with British officials in 2009 in which one is alleged to have said: “BIOT’s former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos archipelago were a marine reserve”.

The ruling also confirms that in an exchange of notes between Washington and London during 1966 “kept secret at the time, the United States agreed to contribute £5m to the costs of establishing the BIOT, to be paid by waiving United Kingdom payments in respect of joint missile development programmes”.

Professor Philippe Sands QC, of Matrix Chambers, who was lead external counsel for Mauritius, said: “This is a historic and far-reaching judgment: for Mauritius, for Africa, for the international rule of law. It offers hope that Mauritius and Britain will be able to move forward to bring to an end an unhappy legacy of colonialism in the Chagos archipelago and Diego Garcia. It opens the door to a return to legality, in relation to matters of sovereignty and the conservation of a remarkable environmental space.”

Sabrina Jean of the Chagos Refugees Group in the UK said exiled islanders were now focused on the outcome of a study being conducted by the accountants KPMG on behalf of the Foreign Office.

“Our case is fighting for the right of return of the Chagossian community. We are focused on the feasibility study and what was said in it, and they have said that Chagossians could return. It depends on the study, but we are quite confident that a fair resettlement can be done. As we’ve always said, we Chagossians are ready to go.”

If there were to be a fair resettlement offer, she said, some of the Chagossians would definitely wish to return home, while others would want to visit the islands make up their minds.

The main judgment says: “The UK has not been able to provide any convincing explanation for the urgency with which it proclaimed the MPA on 1 April 2010,” and suggests that its “haste” was “dictated by the electoral timetable in the United Kingdom or an anticipated change of government”.

It adds: “Not only did the United Kingdom proceed on the flawed basis that Mauritius had no fishing rights in the territorial sea of the Chagos archipelago, it presumed to conclude—without ever confirming with Mauritius – that the MPA was in Mauritius’ interest.”

The two dissenting judges, James Kateka and Rüdiger Wolfrum, go further, referring to “language of intimidation” used by the then colonial secretary in the 1960s.

The two judges observe that: “The 1965 excision of the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius shows a complete disregard for the territorial integrity of Mauritius by the United Kingdom, which was the colonial power.

“British and American defence interests were put above Mauritius’ rights. Fast forward to 2010 and one finds a similar disregard of Mauritius’ rights, such as the total ban on fishing in the MPA. These are not accidental happenings.”

In effect, they find that the UK does not have sovereignty because the archipelago should never have been separated from Mauritius. The other three judges say the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to resolve this aspect of the issue.

In 2013, a spokesman for David Milliband told the Guardian: “The marine protected area has been a great step forward and went through all proper government processes.”

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the tribunal found there was no improper motive in the creation of the MPA. There is no question about UK sovereignty in the British Indian Ocean Territory; as the legitimate power, the UK is committed to working with neighbouring states, including Mauritius, to ensure proper conservation management of the marine protected area.”

“We will now work with Mauritius to explore how its fishing ambitions are compatible with conservation in the territory.”