Pre-tectonic metagabbroic rocks emplaced into the Glenfinnan and Loch Eil groups of the Moine Supergroup give a U–-Pb zircon age of 873 ± 6 Ma. This new age for the metagabbros confirms the absence of Grenvillian (c. 1.0 Ga) tectonic events in the Moine assemblage. The metagabbros are spatially associated with the Glen Doe body of the West Highland granite gneiss, and were emplaced soon after the granite gneiss protolith. The metagabbros have chemical characteristics indicating contamination with local country rocks. A regionally developed suite of tholeiitic metadolerite dykes post-dates the metagabbros. These dykes are geochemically similar to modern mid-ocean ridge basalt, albeit modified by interaction with metamorphic fluids. The presence of abundant MORB-like basaltic dykes, coupled with the lack of major compressional structures associated with the intrusive events, suggests that the c. 873 Ma event may have been dominated by extensional tectonics.
As part of the University of Maryland School of Medicine’s HeartFailure program expansion, the Department of Medicine’sCardiovascular Medicine Division is actively recruiting a full-timeAssociate/Assistant-level professor to help grow our extensiveclinical programs in heart failure, cardiac transplantation, andmechanical circulatory support, and contribute to the scientificmission of the University. It is expected that the candidate, withmentorship, will develop a research portfolio with extramuralfunding.Our advanced heart failure section is nationally known with anexcellent track record in cutting edge mechanical circulatorysupport, heart transplant and in advanced heart failure. TheUniversity of Maryland Division of Cardiovascular and MarylandHeart Center are home to some of the brightest minds in the worldin medical and surgical management of heart failure. The heartfailure program is nationally recognized with an extended patientreferral base.Qualifications :This position requires a MD degree from a recognized accrediteduniversity (or foreign equivalent) and all candidates must beeligible for an unrestricted Maryland medical license. Fellowshiptraining in advanced heart failure, as well as a proven record inresearch, clinical care and teaching is required. Existingextramural funding support is important but not mandatory for theright candidate.Expected faculty rank is Assistant Professor or higher, however,final rank, tenure status and salary will be commensurate with theselected candidate’s qualifications and experience. The Universityof Maryland Health System represents a dynamic, regionalcardiovascular network that spans the Baltimore and Washington DCcapital region, and ranks among the nations very best in cardiaccare. We are proud to offer a competitive salary, medical/dentalbenefits, disability plans, retirement plans, and more!When applying, please submit a cover letter, CV and names of fourreferences. For additional questions after application, pleaseemail [email protected]
MOUNTAINEERING Over the summer, members of the Oxford University Mountaineering Club travelled to Chamonix, in the French Alps. We practised ropework on a glacier, before climbing to the dining-table sized summit of the Aiguille Des Petit Charmoz (2867m) and Mont Blanc du Tacul (4248m), where we could watch the sunrise from the summit. Several group members then moved to Saas Grund in Switzerland, where we climbed the Lagginhorn (4010m) and the Weissmies (4017m). Meanwhile, others moved to the Petit Aiguille Verte (3512m), and the Table de Roc spur of the Aiguille du Tour (3544m), followed by the Aiguille de Belvedere (2966m), the highest peak in the Aiguilles Rouges with great views of Mont Blanc. Alison Parker summed up the team’s enthusiastic reception of the trip, “The first thing that struck me about the Alps is that it is such a different scale to anywhere I’ve climbed before – but I have certainly gained a lot of experience this summer and I’m starting to plan next years expedition!”ARCHIVE: 1st Week MT2003
Oxford University has committed to publishing the expense claims of vice chancellor Louise Richardson on its website, following calls for transparency over her and other senior staff’s remuneration.The move will see the existing expenses of Richardson – who has defended her pay against popular backlash, once comparing her £350,000 salary to those of footballers and bankers – published later this year, with future claims being made public on a rolling basis. However, the University declined to provide details on whether they would be giving a detailed breakdown of expenses as has been requested by Cherwell, as opposed to the records being itemised by generalised categories.Cherwell understands the University currently has no plans to publish the expense claims of the pro vice-chancellors and other senior staff.Last year, Cherwell revealed that nearly £70,000 had been spent on Richardson’s expenses since she became vice chancellor, including nearly £29,969 on air travel – nearly four times than the average £7,762 claimed by university vice chancellors in 2017/18.A University spokesperson told Cherwell: “The vice-chancellor was concerned about the amount of time staff were spending answering multiple FOI requests about her expenses so she decided she would post them on the website.Going forward her office will post them by month on a quarterly basis.”The University FoI team has failed to respond to requests in a timely manner for most of this year, with some passing well past the statutory deadline of twenty working days to more than 4 months.Last term, Cherwell revealed some of the expense claims of Oxford heads of college.While this shed some transparency into college expense claim policies – with some college heads splashing the cash on luxury hotels and gentlemen’s clubs – most colleges failed to give comprehensive responses to FoI requests on the matter.
The Department of Fire and Rescue Services announces that the Ocean City Beach Patrol will be guarding the following beaches starting Saturday, June 25, and continuing until further notice. Beaches are guarded from 10:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. weekends and holidays and from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.Seacliff RoadSeaspray RoadSurf RoadWaverly Road (Surfing Beach)Atlantic BoulevardNorth StreetStenton PlaceSt. Charles PlaceDelancey PlacePark PlaceBrighton Place5th Street7th Street (Surfing Beach)8th Street9th Street10th Street11th Street12th Street13th Street14th Street15th Street16th Street (Surfing Beach)17th Street18th Street20th Street22nd Street24th Street26th Street28th Street30th Street32nd Street34th Street36th Street39th Street42nd Street44th Street46th Street48th Street50th Street53rd Street55th Street58th Street60th StreetIn addition, a Rapid Response Team will be stationed at 12th Street and be ready to assist Ocean City Fire Department and Ocean City Police Department personnel in water rescues at any beach until 8 p.m. The Ocean City Beach Patrol strongly urges bathers to swim only at guarded beaches. If you have any questions please call 525-9201 or 525-9200. For information on guarded beaches, watch Ocean City Government Access Channel 97.* The protected beach at Seacliff Road is new for 2016.Starting on Thursday, June 23, lifeguards will remain on duty at the Eighth Street, Ninth Street and 12th Street beaches until 8 p.m. This coverage will be seven days a week through Labor Day. These beaches are open due to the high volume of beach patrons as a way to provide extended coverage.
The conference, held in London, brings together international FGM and forced marriage experts, law enforcement, politicians, activists and survivors. It acts as a forum to discuss the response to the crimes and to share best practice, strengthen links and consider further action that can be taken internationally.The public consultation on forced marriage will consider whether a mandatory duty to report should be introduced. If it is introduced it will identify which professionals the duty would apply to, the specific circumstances where a case would have to be reported and potential sanctions for failure to comply with the duty. It will also explore how the existing statutory guidance for professionals on forced marriage could be strengthened.The awareness campaign, to be rolled out in due course, has been developed in partnership with campaigners. It aims to educate the public and potential victims on what constitutes a forced marriage and raise awareness of the emotional and psychological pressures that are faced by victims.Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability Minister Victoria Atkins, who speaks at the conference tomorrow, added: strengthening the law through the Serious Crime Act 2015 to improve protection for victims and those at risk, including introducing lifelong anonymity for victims of FGM, bringing in civil FGM Protection Orders and introducing a mandatory reporting duty for known cases in under 18s developing an FGM communications campaign to educate communities about the long-term health consequences of FGM providing resources for frontline professionals, including a resource pack, free e-learning, statutory multi-agency guidance and a range of communication materials Home Secretary Sajid Javid has rallied governments, campaigners and communities to help boost the response to the “medieval practices” of forced marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM).Hundreds of activists have convened at the International Conference on Ending FGM and Forced Marriage for a 2-day gathering, organised by the Home Office, aimed to strengthen the response to these barbaric crimes.This afternoon (Thursday 15 November) the Home Secretary opened the conference and launched a public consultation into whether there should be a mandatory reporting duty for forced marriage and updating the existing statutory guidance on forced marriage.He also unveiled posters and a video that will be used in an upcoming forced marriage awareness campaign. The materials highlight that forced marriage is a crime and direct victims and concerned parties to contact the Forced Marriage Helpline for help and support.During his speech, Home Secretary Sajid Javid, said: Governments worldwide have a crucial role to play in bringing an end to what can only be described as medieval practices. These are crimes which in my view are despicable, inhumane and uncivilised. I’m clear that by working together, we can end these appalling crimes and build a safer world for our children – and more specifically – for our daughters. According to a City University and Equality Now study, part funded by the Home Office, it is estimated that 137,000 women and girls who have migrated to England and Wales are living with the consequences of FGM. Approximately 60,000 girls aged 0 to 14 were born in England and Wales to mothers who had undergone FGM.In 2017, the Forced Marriage Unit provided support in 1,196 cases and, to date, more than 1,600 Forced Marriage Protection Orders and 248 FGM Protection Orders have been made to protect victims and those at risk and to assist in repatriating victims.The UK government has taken the lead in tackling these barbaric crimes. Measures taken by the government include:FGM Forced marriage FGM and forced marriage are devastating crimes which can cause severe and lifelong physical, psychological and emotional harm. Everyone should have the opportunity to make the most of their potential, without fear that they may be hurt by those closest to them. I continue to be deeply impressed by the extraordinary level of energy and commitment from everyone working towards eradicating these crimes. we have introduced a specific criminal offence of forced marriage, lifelong anonymity for victims, and criminalised breach of a Forced Marriage Protection Order to date, almost 1,500 Forced Marriage Protection Orders have been made to prevent people from being forced into a marriage the joint Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) provides support and advice for victims, those at risk, and professionals, through its public helpline – in the last year the FMU’s outreach work has improved the capability of thousands of frontline professionals to ensure victims and those at risk are safeguarded
Lake Champlain Chocolates (LCC), a gourmet Vermont chocolatier and maker of a gourmet line of organic chocolates was selected as “Best Milk Chocolate” in a taste test of more than a dozen varieties of organic chocolates.In a recent taste test hosted at Martha Stewart’s Body + Soul Magazine, organic chocolate bars from more than a dozen different manufacturers were tested in milk chocolate, dark chocolate, and “wild” categories. At the completion of the taste test, Lake Champlain Chocolates was chosen at the best milk chocolate “bar none.” Amongst the positive reviews, the milk chocolate bar was described as “a buttery treat that’s as rich as a slice of chocolate cake.”As one of the newest additions to the variety of chocolate offerings from Lake Champlain Chocolates, the Organic Chocolate line has been extremely popular. Available in four flavors – Aztec Dark Chocolate with hints of cayenne, cinnamon, and pumpkin seeds, Milk Chocolate with Sea Salt and Almonds, Solid Dark Chocolate, and Solid Milk Chocolate – those seeking a delicious organic alternative are sure to find a flavor they’ll love. And for those who are concerned about devouring an entire bar, all the organic flavors are available in individually wrapped squares, ideal for that portion-controlled daily dose of chocolate.”Less is always more when it comes to quality food.” said Allyson Myers, Director of Sales for Lake Champlain Chocolates. “We’ve carefully chosen organic ingredients, delicious in their purity, and created a line of organic chocolates with no loss of flavor or experience.”Blending traditional artisanal chocolate-making with pure organic ingredients, these bars continue Lake Champlain Chocolates’ commitment to seeking out the highest quality ingredients possible, while supporting good farming practices, sustainability, and a healthier environment.
“We are in a public health crisis, and we need everyone to take this seriously and act responsibly,” said Governor Northam.“Our message to Virginians is clear: stay home. We know this virus spreads primarily through human-to-human contact, and that’s why it’s so important that people follow this order and practice social distancing. I’m deeply grateful to everyone for their cooperation during this unprecedented and difficult time.” Governor Ralph Northam today issued a statewide Stay at Home order to protect the health and safety of Virginians and mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19. The executive order takes effect immediately and will remain in place until June 10, 2020, unless amended or rescinded by a further executive order. The executive order also directs all Virginia institutions of higher education to stop in-person classes and instruction. Private campgrounds must close for short-term stays, and beaches will be closed statewide except for fishing and exercise. The order directs all Virginians to stay home except in extremely limited circumstances. Individuals may leave their residence for allowable travel, including to seek medical attention, work, care for family or household members, obtain goods and services like groceries, prescriptions, and others as outlined in Executive Order Fifty-Three, and engage in outdoor activity with strict social distancing requirements. The full text of Executive Order Fifty-Five can be found here. Last week, Governor Northam issued Executive Order Fifty-Three closing certain non-essential businesses, prohibiting public gatherings of more than 10 people, and directing all K-12 schools to remain closed for the rest of the academic year. A Frequently Asked Questions guide about Executive Order Fifty-Three can be found here.For the latest information about the COVID-19 outbreak, visit virginia.gov/coronavirus or CDC.gov/coronavirus.Full Release
Board rejects gay adoption lobbying Board rejects gay adoption lobbying Senior Editor Although no one defended the law, the Bar Board of Governors has said three sections cannot lobby to repeal a state law banning homosexuals from adopting because it is too divisive among Bar members.The board voted 31-13 at its December 10 meeting in Naples to accept the recommendation of the Legislative Committee and deny the request of the Family Law, Equal Opportunities Law, and Public Interest Law sections to seek to change the law. The three sections wanted to substitute a best-interest-of-the-child standard for the gay adoption ban.The board devoted almost two hours of debate to the issue.“No matter how you feel about this, pro or con, some things are obvious,” said board member Harold Melville. “This is a highly emotional issue. It’s a deeply philosophical issue and we are dealing with a [Bar] rule. That rule says if the issue carries the potential for deep philosophical or emotional division among a substantial segment of the membership, the section cannot be allowed to lobby for it.“The divisiveness [of the issue] is not a potential divisiveness; there is in fact a deep emotional and philosophical division among the members of the Bar.. . . We’re not talking about whether we think this is a good law or a bad law. We’re looking at our rules, and our rules say where there is the potential for deep division, the section must be prohibited from lobbying on it.”Board member Steve Chaykin disagreed. “This is as bigoted and repugnant a law as there is,” he said, adding if the term homosexual was replaced in the law with any ethnic, gender, or religious group there would be no question that the sections would be allowed to act. The issue, he said, is fair and equal access to the courts.“I am told that the argument [against the sections] is that the clause dealing with deep philosophical and emotional differences. . . is designed to protect the Bar from a structural integrity standpoint and to protect the Bar from its enemies,” Chaykin said. “But in the process, if we undermine the core values of this organization,. . . then what are we protecting other than a simple shell of what we believe is a core value of this organization?. . . I do not want this organization to simply stand by and say nothing.”He added that if it were a Bar position, he would agree taking action using mandatory Bar dues would be improper. But he said the voluntary sections, using their own money and not Bar money, should be able to act.Evan Marks, chair of the Family Law Section, and board member Nancy Gregoire, liaison to the section, presented the three sections’ arguments to the board as they had the day before to the Legislative Committee.“What I’m bringing to you is not a request to endorse homosexual adoption,” Marks said. “We’re asking for you to allow us. . . to lobby against a discriminatory law that says if you are a homosexual you cannot go into court and ask to adopt.”The state already pays homosexuals to be foster parents, and Florida is the only state with an outright prohibition against gay adoptions, he said.He and Gregoire said only about 50 letters had been received against the sections’ proposed action, and that wasn’t enough to constitute a substantial segment of the Bar to meet the divisive standard. Gregoire said the opposition fell into two categories: those who think the issue is divisive and those who have a moral opposition to gay adoptions.“This is a legal issue, and the reason we have the right to address it is the right of children to have access to the courts,” she said. “Why does not that child have a right to go to a judge and say, ‘You, the judge, decide if this is in my best interest.’?”Gregoire also argued those who have opposed the sections for moral reasons have in fact forced the Bar into a moral position. “Don’t make us muzzled because those few folks want us to be,” she said.The board heard that the three sections were being supported by the Elder Law Section and by the Florida Association for Women Lawyers. But the Trial Lawyers Section and the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section both discussed the issue and declined to take a stance. And the Young Lawyers Division Board of Governors debated the issue and recommended that the three sections be turned down because of the divisiveness.YLD President Mike Faehner told the board there was no better example of the emotion and divisiveness of the issue than the reaction to the YLD’s review. Although the YLD based its advice on a rigorous and neutral analysis of the law and Bar policies, he was called a Nazi and homophobe by other lawyers who contacted him after the vote.“I didn’t think this was an emotional debate,” Faehner said. “I was wrong.”Opponents of the sections said many legislators and even many Bar members do not understand the difference between the Bar as a whole and sections taking a position, and would see the sections as representing the entire Bar. They also said regardless of personal feelings about the law, it was wrong to nullify the Bar’s procedures and rules.Board member Ervin Gonzalez said he asked hundreds of lawyers about the issue and was overwhelmingly told the Bar should not get involved. He noted the rules might have prevented the Bar 50 years ago from taking a stance on Brown v. Board of Education, but said probably a majority of the board would have individually supported it. Section members can still do that without any board action, he added.“I’m saying please stand and fight this discriminatory law and do not allow The Florida Bar’s silence on this to be a mandate for you,” Gonzalez said. “Do not ask The Florida Bar to take a position that it cannot take because of our internal rules and bylaws.”Board members Jesse Diner and David Rothman said they intended to take Gonzalez’ advice and contribute time and money to repeal the law, but added they felt compelled to obey Bar rules.While the adoption ban is bad, “If we don’t follow the law in changing the law, are we any better?” Rothman asked. “I’m going to vote against their proposal, but I will contribute and go to Tallahassee to argue for the repeal of that law. There will be a time when we can say it’s not divisive.”“I don’t like the [divisiveness] rule and I abhor that this statute is on the books,” Diner said. “I live in a neighborhood with a large gay population, and I hate that I have to tell them I voted against this. But I don’t have the right to nullify this rule.”Supporters argued the real issue is not divisiveness but about equal access to the courts which should not be a controversial issue to Bar members. They also questioned whether the Bar can avoid the issue.Board member Chris Lombardo noted the Bar, in rule 4-8.4, prohibits discrimination by lawyers on a variety of grounds, including sexual orientation. He said that could make a lawyer liable to discipline if he or she went to court to oppose an adoption because a would-be parent is gay.“We’re already in this fight; we’re already there,” Lombardo said. “A gay person who is married to a straight person and is a parent can divorce and get custody. How do you square that with the ban on gay adoption?“This law is improper. It’s not a question of morality; it’s a question of what’s right. We do not support discrimination in any form. We need to take a position and get it over.”Board member Henry Latimer said he’s heard the divisiveness argument used before, as justification for not taking action on gender and racial discrimination issues.“I take no position on the right to adopt or not to have the right not to adopt, but the right to speak out against it is something that should be inviolate,” he said. “The time is always right to do the right thing. What is morally right takes precedence over something that’s ambiguous.. . . We should have the courage to protect that right and not use the technical definition of not addressing issues because they’re divisive.”The board vote approved the motion of the Legislative Committee, which had voted unanimously to reject the sections’ requests. But the committee also specified in its motion that the sole reason for the rejection was of the Bar policy prohibiting sections from engaging in legislative activities that have the potential to cause deep emotional and philosophical division among a significant portion of the Bar’s membership.Under court rulings and Bar rules and policies, the Bar, because of its mandatory membership, is limited in what political positions it can take. Those are generally limited to items related to improving the delivery of legal services and the oversight and regulation of the legal profession.Sections, which have a voluntary membership, are given a wider latitude in lobbying positions, although they must use only section money and no Bar funds. Sections generally can lobby on any issue as long as it does not conflict with a Bar-wide position, falls within the section’s purview, and does not violate the divisive standard. January 1, 2005 Gary Blankenship Senior Editor Regular News
Three Massachusetts men pleaded guilty last week to orchestrating a sophisticated multistate ATM robbery spree, netting them $500,000, including more than $170,000 stolen from a credit union ATM.David Barker, 39, Efrain Montero, 41, and Jonathan Santos, 35, of Lawrence, pleaded guilty to indictments charging them with the burglary and attempted burglary of thirteen ATMs and commercial businesses, according to the Essex District Attorney’s Office.Assistant District Attorney Philip Mallard said the men scouted for ATM locations in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.The men travelled in a stolen van to targeted ATMs and used tools access them. Wearing masks and dark clothing, two of the three men neutralized the alarm and security system, while the third man looked out for police. After cutting wires to the ATMs security system, they waited and listened on a scanner to be sure that police had not been alerted. continue reading » 8SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr