Is Aer Lingus taking flight from Shannon? WhatsApp TAGSfilmLimerick City and CountyNewsTroyTroy Studios Shannon Airport braced for a devastating blow Local backlash over Aer Lingus threat RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR TechPost | Episode 9 | Pay with Google, WAZE – the new Google Maps? and Speak don’t Type! Facebook Limerick on Covid watch list Previous articleWATCH: John Kiely on the importance of improving year on yearNext articleHigh flying Munsters welcome leaders Con to Greenfields Bernie Englishhttp://www.limerickpost.ieBernie English has been working as a journalist in national and local media for more than thirty years. She worked as a staff journalist with the Irish Press and Evening Press before moving to Clare. She has worked as a freelance for all of the national newspaper titles and a staff journalist in Limerick, helping to launch the Limerick edition of The Evening Echo. Bernie was involved in the launch of The Clare People where she was responsible for business and industry news. Advertisement Email Linkedin Twitter Housing 37 Compulsory Purchase Orders issued as council takes action on derelict sites Print A SECOND Troy studio is on the cards for Limerick, such is the success of the film production site at the former Dell computer factory in Castletroy.Members of Limerick City and County Council’s Economic Development Enterprise and Planning Committee have been told that the success achieved by Troy has sparked the search for another premises to start a second studio.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up Innovate Limerick chief executive David Cantwell said that an important part of his organisation’s work is to make the Mid West a more attractive location for film production.“Troy is a success story and we have been working with Screen Ireland and Screen Training Ireland to develop the sector. There’s up to €500 million in film project funding floating around looking for somewhere to get started.”Mr Cantwell said they are currently seeking suitable premises and while Limerick is a likely location it could also go to the county or other big Mid West towns.Either way, he said there would be Limerick jobs created, and “well-paid jobs” at that.“It doesn’t have to have as a big a floor space as Troy but it does need height and that is very important. It could well be a smaller concern able to accommodate some of the lower budget productions.“Troy is aimed at the big-ticket productions for Netflix and the like but they tend to stay a few months and then leave, taking their skills with them.“If we had smaller productions rolling over the whole time, it would be an enormous advantage in training people in the skill sets they need for the industry.Other projects that Innovate is currently involved in include developing an ehub in Abbeyfeale and helping to develop the Kilmallock business park.The company has also acquired the former social welfare building in Limerick City and Theatre Royal to facilitate expansion and establishment of the Digital Collaboration Centre.Responding to Cllr Stephan Kearey (FG), who asked whether Limerick has the necessary skill sets to fill those additional jobs, Mr Cantwell said it is a “new industry and we are somewhat reliant on attracting outside skills.“But there is a lot of work being done on films in particular and at third level. We are now establishing the Mid West Film Eduction and Training group.”“There are 450 people working n Troy right now and there’s a good representation of local people working there, particularly on sets.”Mr Cantwell added that it was the industry itself which was saying that there is a requirement for another facility.Cllr Bridie Collins (FF) said the further growth of a film industry in the Mid West “could be used as an argument for support for Shannon airport.“If Limerick is becoming a hub for film investment – they seem to tie up,” she said. NewsBusinessLocal NewsPoliticsA second Troy is the burning ambition for film industryBy Bernie English – December 12, 2019 256
Related posts:No related photos. Far from black and whiteOn 1 Sep 2001 in Personnel Today The issue of race has never been higher on the politicalagenda. For employers, too, it presents more challenges than ever before, as RachelDineley reportsIssues of racism and race discrimination have been much in the news lately.The debate as to the causes of racial tension and how it may be combated hasbeen raging since the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence, butdespite much national introspection, the answers seem as distant as ever. As a result of the inquiry into Lawrence’s death, the Race Relations(Amendment) Act 2000 was introduced. Its purpose was to outlaw racediscrimination in the performance of functions by public authorities not coveredby the Race Relations Act 1976. A month later, the Home Office producedguidance on recruitment in the context of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. While the new act is the latest UK statute to grapple with issues of racediscrimination, it shares the stage with two new European directives, the RaceDirective and the Framework Directive, which will require the UK government toput further legislation in place by 2003. This legislation is likely to entailfurther amendments to the RRA. In the meantime, employers may be well advisedto review their policies and procedures, beginning with those relating torecruitment, to ensure that they comply with legal requirements and goodpractice. Race Relations (Amendment) Act The new act came into force on 2 April 2001. It extends the ambit of the RRAin a number of key respects, in particular in the discharge of public functionsby public authorities. The RRA was designed to tackle discrimination on racialgrounds in the field of employment, the provision of goods, facilities andservices, training, education, housing and public appointments but”services” were given a narrow interpretation by the courts. The new Act seeks to remedy the shortcomings of the RRA in this respect and,in so doing, creates new challenges for employers in the public sector. The new act imposes both general and specific duties on public authoritieswhich, for this purpose, are defined as “any body certain of whosefunctions are of a public nature” (the approach taken in the Human RightsAct 1998). The definition of “public authority” is sufficiently broad toembrace those bodies which are privately owned but have responsibility fordischarging functions of a public nature, such as the running of a prison. The new act, which introduces a new section 71 into the RRA, imposes ageneral duty on authorities when carrying out their public functions to”have due regard to the need (a) to eliminate unlawful race discriminationand (b) to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between personsof different racial groups”. Public authorities are, in effect, requiredto undertake a balancing exercise when determining how to discharge theirpublic functions and to give appropriate weight to promoting race equality. Inaddition, the Home Secretary may, by order, impose “such duties as heconsiders appropriate for the purposes of ensuring the better performance”of the general duty to promote race equality. The Commission for Racial Equality has been given extensive powers under thenew act including powers to issue codes of practice after appropriateconsultation. Once in force, a code of practice will be admissible in court inrespect of any claim brought under the act or an order imposed under it topromote race equality. This is comparable to the CRE’s code of practice givingguidance on employment practices, which may be taken into account by anyemployment tribunal considering a complaint of race discrimination. The aim of the new Act is to ensure that proper account is taken by publicauthorities in both policy development and service delivery. Their recruitmentpractices will, no doubt, be integral to fulfilling their general and specificduties imposed by the new act. Recruitment without prejudice The CRE’s code of practice for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination andthe Promotion of Equality of Opportunity in Employment was published in 1983.Since then, workplace practices have developed and changed, not least as aresult of the development of technology and the demands placed on employers byan ever increasing body of law regulating employment practices. In addition to the CRE’s code of practice, employers should now take accountof a Home Office code of practice, in force since 2 May 2001, relating to theAsylum and Immigration Act. The CRE’s code of practice reminds employers that, when advertising jobvacancies, it is unlawful for employers to publish an advertisement whichindicates, or could reasonably be understood to indicate, an intention todiscriminate against applicants from a particular racial group (section 29 ofthe RRA). Employers should also avoid requiring information such as length ofresidence in the UK, and where a particular qualification is required, itshould make clear that a fully comparable qualification obtained overseas is asacceptable as a UK qualification. Under section 4(1)(a) of the RRA it is unlawful to discriminate on racialgrounds in the arrangements an employer makes for the purpose of determiningwho should be offered employment. Accordingly employers must not userecruitment methods which preclude or disproportionately reduce the numbers ofapplicants of a particular racial group, and which cannot be shown to bejustifiable. Against that background, what are the implications for employers whoserecruitment practices include advertising vacancies and processing jobapplications received via the Internet? Employers’ websites may be accessed via the Internet by prospective jobapplicants from around the world. They may be inundated with applications fromapplicants who do not enjoy any right to work in the UK. Section 8 of the Actmakes it unlawful for an employer to employ persons who are not entitled towork here. How is an employer to comply with its obligations under the 1996 Act?The Home Office’s code of practice aims to provide employers with guidance.As with the CRE code of practice, while a failure to observe the code will notof itself constitute a breach of the law, such a failure will be admissible inevidence in any employment tribunal proceedings and the tribunal may takeaccount of the code, if it is relevant. The Home Office code advises that employers should ensure that noprospective job applicants are discouraged or excluded either directly orindirectly because of their appearance or accent. Assumptions should not bemade about a person’s right to work or immigration status on the basis of theircolour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origin or the length of timethey have been in the UK. All job selections should be on the basis ofsuitability for the post. The code reminds employers of the need to ascertain an applicant’s right towork, which may be established by the production of any one of a number ofdocuments. It advises that: “There is no need to ask for an applicant’simmigration status, apart from asking if he or she needs a work permit. Suchenquiries could mislead you into taking decisions which might constituteunlawful racial discrimination.” The best way to ensure you do not discriminate is to treat all applicants inthe same way at each stage of the recruitment process, for example, whensupplying an application form, you could include a reminder that the successfulapplicant will be asked to produce one of a list of specified documents – andattach the list. The code goes on to remind employers that applicants may be asked to provideone of the specified documents at any stage before they commence work.”Depending on your recruitment processes, you may find it most convenientto request the document from all those called to a first interview, or justfrom those called to a second interview, or only from the person chosen to fillthe vacancy. It is perfectly satisfactory to ask for a document only from theperson chosen to fill the vacancy if that is most administrativelyconvenient.” This last suggestion seems unlikely to reflect the approach employers willwish to take in practice. What employer would wish to go to the time, troubleand expense of a comprehensive recruitment process, leading to their making ajob offer, only to discover that the successful candidate has no right to workhere? In general, employers will only be granted a work permit in respect of a jobcandidate where it can be demonstrated that the employer has advertised the jobin the most appropriate medium that provides the best way of reaching suitablequalified “resident workers” ie, workers who are nationals ofcountries in the European Economic Area (EEA) or people who have settled statusin the UK within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971. Ordinarily, work permits will not be granted where the employer (who mustapply for the work permit, rather than the job applicant) fails to demonstratethat there are no suitably qualified “resident workers” to whom thejob might be offered. The employer may apply for and be granted a work permit,but this is likely to incur additional trouble and expense, to say nothing ofthe delay in the commencement of the candidate’s employment. If the work permitis refused, the employer may have lost the opportunity to offer the post in questionto other candidates on its shortlist who may, in the meantime, have securedjobs elsewhere. If an employer readily expects to be able to satisfy its recruitmentrequirements from job applicants who are “resident workers”, will itbe unlawfully discriminating against other applicants if it declines to processapplications from applicants for whom it would need to seek a work permit? Itmay be argued that it is indirectly discriminatory for an employer to impose arequirement or condition that job applicants must have an existing entitlementto work in the UK. Plainly, while such a requirement would not be designed toexclude applicants on racial grounds, the practical effect would be to excludethe majority of prospective applicants of a wide range of racial groupsresident outside the EEA. Whether an employer would be objectively justified inimposing such a requirement or condition must depend upon the particular factsin each case, including the nature of the posts for which the employer isrecruiting, the number of applications received and the likelihood of theemployer seeking and being granted a work permit in respect of any particularvacancy. The reality may be that job applicants who seek to apply for jobs via theInternet are unlikely to institute proceedings against an employer here, whenthey are resident abroad. The practical difficulties of pursuing such a claimare self evident. Nonetheless, the risk must exist. Looking ahead The pitfalls for employers on recruitment are likely to increase whenlegislation is introduced to give effect to the Race Directive and FrameworkDirective. The former must be implemented by 19 June 2003. It makes it unlawfulto discriminate on race or ethnic grounds, including discrimination in accessto employment and self-employment and access to occupations. Indirectdiscrimination is defined as occurring where an apparently neutral provision,criterion or practice would put a person at a particular disadvantage, whencompared with others, unless objectively justified by a legitimate aim and themeans of achieving that aim can be shown to be necessary and appropriate. Thiscontrasts with the narrower definition under the RRA. The Framework Directive outlaws discrimination, among other things, ongrounds of age, religion or sexual orientation. Protection againstdiscrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and religion must be introducedby 2 December 2003. The requirements in respect of age and disabilitydiscrimination must be complied with by December 2006. Again, protection isafforded in relation to employment, self-employment and occupations. The Government has now implemented the Burden of Proof directive and newregulations will come into force on 12 October 2001, to shift the burden ofproof in sex discrimination cases onto the employer (see October’s EmployersLaw for more details). The definition of indirect sex discrimination will beamended to substitute the concept of an unjustifiable “requirement orcondition” with an unjustifiable “provision, criterion orpractice” which is indirectly discriminatory. No doubt, in due course, we will see case law develop, as this newdefinition is tried and tested before the employment tribunals and theEmployment Appeals Tribunal. Employers will need to monitor these developments,and adapt their policies and procedures, including their recruitment practices,to cater for the changes in UK discrimination law in the months and yearsahead. Rachel Dineley is a partner in national law firm Beachcroft Wansbroughs Latest advice from the CREIn response to our enquiries, the Commission had the following advice forInternet recruiters.– It is suggested employers include a statement on websites such as,”We are unable to apply for work permits until all EEA options have beeneliminated”, or words to that effect.– Employers should state on websites: “It is unlawful to employ aperson aged 16 or over who does not have permission to live and work in the UK.We will not be able to engage you if you cannot produce, when requested, one ofthe following documents…” and list the documents.– It is recommended that applicants be asked to provide specified documentsonly at shortlist stage or when offering the post. Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Article
James Franklin answers questions from reporters after he was introduced as Penn State’s new football coach during a news conference on Saturday Jan. 11, 2014, in State College, Pa. (AP Photo/John Beale)STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) – James Franklin’s plan on how to be CEO of the Penn State football is in place.Now, so is his coaching staff.Penn State’s 16th football coach, hired Jan. 11 to replace new Houston Texans coach Bill O’Brien, spoke with energy and optimism about the nine-man staff he introduced Friday at Beaver Stadium.Most of the staff worked with Franklin during his three years at Vanderbilt. Eight of the 10 total coaches are from within 340 miles of State College, including four from Pennsylvania.“I feel like we have a really good plan,” said Franklin, who labeled himself as the CEO of Penn State football. “I’m really excited about the staff we’ve been able to put together.“For me, I was looking for familiarity, guys I’ve worked with or known for a very, very long time. Guys that I trust and interact with the players, the community and also have a connection with Penn State from a lot of different perspectives.”Here is the staff:-Bob Shoop, defensive coordinator and safeties coach.-John Donovan, offensive coordinator and tight ends coach.-Charles Huff, special teams coordinator and running backs coach.-Brent Pry, assistant head coach, co-defensive coordinator and linebackers coach.-Josh Gattis, offensive recruiting coordinator and wide receivers coach.-Herb Hand, run game coordinator and offensive line coach.-Ricky Rahne, passing game coordinator and quarterbacks coach.-Sean Spencer, defensive line coach.-Terry Smith, defensive recruiting coordinator and cornerbacks coach.Terry Smith (Courier File Photo)Smith was a wide receiver for Penn State from 1988-91 and enjoyed a successful coaching career at Gateway High School in suburban Pittsburgh before one year of college coaching at Temple. Franklin, Pry and Shoop join Smith as Pennsylvania natives.Franklin has been concentrating on his incoming recruiting class. He said he and the staff will get down to actual football after Feb. 5 when signed national letters of intent become binding.“Recruiting is so important and it’s important to have guys with strong ties to this region; I feel like we’ve done that,” Franklin said. “We will not have one guy on this staff I don’t feel will be an excellent recruiter.His staff, Franklin said, will consist of “smart guys” and “talented people.”“I want to surround myself with people who are loyal, loyal to Penn State, loyal to James Franklin and fired up about being here because this is one of the more unique opportunities in college football,” he said.Franklin said Donovan “more than likely” would be the sideline play-caller.“John called every single play over the last three years at Vanderbilt,” Franklin said.The 41-year-old head coach pointed out that any depth chart before fall practice will be based entirely on seniority.“The most important thing is these kids all start with a clean slate and they have opportunity to earn starting jobs,” he said.“There are no returning starters at any position . at any position. Every single day these guys are going to wake up and they’re going to earn their job. We’re going to create the most competitive experience we possibly can.”Aside from a busy recruiting schedule, Franklin has met with players – current and former. He stressed that he and his staff will “show tremendous respect for our traditions and for our history and for our past” at Penn State.Franklin’s staff will be the third set of coaches for some Penn State players, dating to Joe Paterno’s final season in 2011 and O’Brien’s 2012 and 2013 stay.“The players have embraced the change,” Franklin said. “We want to build relationships and trust and chemistry and build stability with them. This program had stability for a very, very long time, and it’s important to get back to that.”
Shelly Sterling, left, wife of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, watches from a courtside seat during the second half of Game 4 of an opening-round NBA basketball playoff series between the Clippers and Golden State Warriors, April 27, 2014: (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)LOS ANGELES (AP) — The estranged wife of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling will fight to retain her 50 percent ownership stake in the team, her lawyer said Thursday, adding an unwanted twist to the NBA’s plan to force new ownership on the franchise.Shelly Sterling’s attorney, Pierce O’Donnell, said his client “will not agree to a forced or involuntary seizure of her interest.”“As her lawyers we will fight vigorously to defend her property rights,” he said.O’Donnell said Mrs. Sterling has no interest in managing the Clippers and wants a new investor group to come in with a professional management team.O’Donnell also told The Associated Press that Shelly Sterling has been separated from her husband for the last year and is considering divorce. There is no record of legal separation documents being filed, though O’Donnell said the couple is living apart.Last week, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver banned Donald Sterling from the NBA for life and urged league owners to force him to sell the team. The move came after a recording surfaced in which Sterling made racist comments, telling friend V. Stiviano that he didn’t want her to bring black people to Clippers games.At a news conference announcing the decision, Silver said no decision had been made regarding whether Mrs. Sterling or any other members of the Sterling family will be allowed to retain an ownership position.O’Donnell said he spoke with NBA officials Thursday morning but declined to elaborate. He said Mrs. Sterling has been working cooperatively with Silver and his staff and supported his announcement seeking a new chief executive officer for the team and the NBA’s decision to place longtime team President Andy Roeser on leave.O’Donnell said Mrs. Sterling “abhors” her husband’s comments and that Silver had “exonerated” Mrs. Sterling in his statement last week. Silver said the decision only involved Donald Sterling and his actions.“We abhor guilt by association in America,” O’Donnell said. “The sins of the husband cannot be imputed to the wife or children.”Shelly and Donald Sterling faced allegations that they discriminated against tenants based on race in Los Angeles according to a lawsuit filed by U.S. Department of Justice in 2006. The Sterlings, who at the time owned and managed about 119 apartment buildings or 5,000 apartments throughout Los Angeles County, agreed to settle the suit for $2.725 million.The settlement also included two suits filed by former tenants at one of the properties, including an African-American family and an interracial married couple with biracial children, who alleged the Sterlings demolished their private yards among other actions because of their race, according to the Justice Department.“The charges against her by former tenants are false, unfounded and were never ever determined to be valid in a court of law,” O’Donnell said. He said the case was settled without any admission of liability. “She doesn’t have a racist bone in her body,” O’Donnell said.Clippers coach Doc Rivers said Thursday at the team’s training facility that “it would be a very hard situation” if Shelly retained her portion of ownership in the team.“I guarantee you every person wouldn’t be on board with that,” Rivers said. “Whether I would or not, I’m not going to say.”O’Donnell said Mrs. Sterling hasn’t been asked to stay away from games and will not. She is an ardent Clippers fan and plans to attend Friday night’s playoff game against Oklahoma City. Rivers said “that’s her choice. She can be a ticket buyer or whatever.”Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA All-Star guard who was asked to serve as a spokesman for NBA players after the Sterling scandal broke, did not immediately return a call seeking comment on Mrs. Sterling’s plan to remain an owner.___AP Sports Writer Beth Harris in Los Angeles, and AP writers Anthony McCartney in Los Angeles and Juliet Williams in Sacramento contributed to this report.___Tami Abdollah can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/latams
The 6-foot, 160-pound Williamson played last season for the Pursuit of Excellence U18 squad last season, finishing the season with 53 points.Prince Albert coach and GM Bruno Campese played his minor hockey in Nelson before going on to a successful career in the WHL.This is the second player Campese has sent to the Leafs.Earlier this season, towering defenceman Cody Paivarinta was sent to Nelson to develop for another shot at the WHL. The Abbotsford native has five points in seven games with Nelson.Nelson plays three games this weekend, two at home Friday (Castlegar) and Saturday (Spokane) before completing the set Sunday in the Sunflower City against the Rebels. The Nelson Leafs appear to have landed another diamond in the rough compliments of the Prince Albert Raiders of the Western Hockey League.The Raiders have re-assigned 16-year-old left winger Dylan Williamson to the Kootenay International Junior Hockey League franchise after the Calgary product played in five exhibition games.