Yisreal, son of a religious scholar who is survived by two children, as well as grandchildren and great-grandchildren, died on Friday, August 11, 2017 just one month before he was due to turn 114.
Showing posts with label WORLD NEWS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WORLD NEWS. Show all posts
After years of discussions, a new law on "plain" cigarette packages is
coming in on Friday.
It will mean an end to white packs with company logos in the UK.
Four of the world's biggest tobacco firms wanted the plans overruled
at the last minute.
They took legal action at the High Court in London but have lost their
case, which means they'll have to stop making their old cigarette
packaging from Friday.
But they'll still have a year to sell any they've already produced.
The truth about smoking in pregnancy
Brighton's thoughts on beach smoking ban
Smoking bans around the world
What the packs would look like
You've seen the picture at the top. So, they'll be a darker olive green
colour. It's thought that implies more harm.
There'll be no more company logos either. Instead the brand name and
make will be in a standard font.
Menthol fags are being banned
In a separate EU law coming in on Friday, new packs will also have to
have extra health warnings on the top.
Promotional statements like "free of additives" or "less harmful than
other brands" will also be banned.
And picture warnings will have to cover 65% of the front and back of
every new pack
You'll be seeing more of picture warnings like these
You'll also say goodbye to packs of 10.
The smallest you'll be able to buy will have 20 cigarettes, or 30g of
rolling tobacco, so there's enough room for warnings.
Plus there'll be new rules on the amount and strength of liquid allowed
in e-cigarettes and herbal products.
It all becomes law on Friday, but again, companies will have a year
before having to comply.
Under the same law, menthol cigarettes and skinny "lipstick-style"
cigarettes will become a thing of the past in the UK by 2020.
They're seen as appealing to young people and wrongfully being
viewed as less harmful.
Manufacturers had already lost their legal challenges over those
changes in the EU's highest court.
Haven't we been hearing about plain packaging for ages?
Yes, there's been a long battle to get to this point. The government
announced it was thinking about standardised packaging in 2011.
It did a consultation on it the next year but then ministers seemed to
go cool on the idea.
That led to accusations they'd been influenced by the tobacco industry.
But then another review of the public health benefits was ordered.
Last year it claimed the plan was "very likely" to lead to a "modest but
important reduction" in smoking.
Why?
Ten million adults are smokers in the UK, despite smoking being the
biggest cause of early deaths.
And more than 600 children aged 11 to 15 start to smoke every day.
That's more than 200,000 a year.
Last year's review says if that number could be cut even by 2%, 4,000
a year fewer would take up the habit.
Some estimates suggest cigarettes kill 100,000 people in Britain each
year.
Research claims standardised packaging makes them less appealing
and helps reinforce health messages - so cancer charities are backing
the plans.
Australia's had unbranded packs since 2012
Ireland passed a similar law last year and Australia's had plain
packaging since 2012.
Obviously the tobacco industry isn't happy
The Tobacco Manufacturers' Association argues there's a "complete
lack of evidence" plain packaging will put smokers off.
They say the move will destroy their highly valuable property rights (to
use their logos) and mean brands will be practically unrecognisable
from each other
They think it breaches several UK and EU laws and is
"disproportionate" to the risk of smoking. Some claim it could also
make selling counterfeit cigarettes easier.
Another hit for tobacco firms
Cigarette firms have faced tough rules on advertising for many years
and have had to carry health warnings since the 1970s.
But in the last decade, smoking's been banned in public places, picture
warnings have been brought in on packs and shops have had to stop
displaying cigarettes.
Last year, a ban on smoking in cars with children came in too.
The smokers' lobby group Forest says: "Consumers are fed up being
patronised by politicians of all parties.
"Smokers know there are health risks associated with tobacco. Plain
packaging won't make any difference.
"What next? Standardised packaging for alcohol and sugary drinks?"
coming in on Friday.
It will mean an end to white packs with company logos in the UK.
Four of the world's biggest tobacco firms wanted the plans overruled
at the last minute.
They took legal action at the High Court in London but have lost their
case, which means they'll have to stop making their old cigarette
packaging from Friday.
But they'll still have a year to sell any they've already produced.
The truth about smoking in pregnancy
Brighton's thoughts on beach smoking ban
Smoking bans around the world
What the packs would look like
You've seen the picture at the top. So, they'll be a darker olive green
colour. It's thought that implies more harm.
There'll be no more company logos either. Instead the brand name and
make will be in a standard font.
Menthol fags are being banned
In a separate EU law coming in on Friday, new packs will also have to
have extra health warnings on the top.
Promotional statements like "free of additives" or "less harmful than
other brands" will also be banned.
And picture warnings will have to cover 65% of the front and back of
every new pack
You'll be seeing more of picture warnings like these
You'll also say goodbye to packs of 10.
The smallest you'll be able to buy will have 20 cigarettes, or 30g of
rolling tobacco, so there's enough room for warnings.
Plus there'll be new rules on the amount and strength of liquid allowed
in e-cigarettes and herbal products.
It all becomes law on Friday, but again, companies will have a year
before having to comply.
Under the same law, menthol cigarettes and skinny "lipstick-style"
cigarettes will become a thing of the past in the UK by 2020.
They're seen as appealing to young people and wrongfully being
viewed as less harmful.
Manufacturers had already lost their legal challenges over those
changes in the EU's highest court.
Haven't we been hearing about plain packaging for ages?
Yes, there's been a long battle to get to this point. The government
announced it was thinking about standardised packaging in 2011.
It did a consultation on it the next year but then ministers seemed to
go cool on the idea.
That led to accusations they'd been influenced by the tobacco industry.
But then another review of the public health benefits was ordered.
Last year it claimed the plan was "very likely" to lead to a "modest but
important reduction" in smoking.
Why?
Ten million adults are smokers in the UK, despite smoking being the
biggest cause of early deaths.
And more than 600 children aged 11 to 15 start to smoke every day.
That's more than 200,000 a year.
Last year's review says if that number could be cut even by 2%, 4,000
a year fewer would take up the habit.
Some estimates suggest cigarettes kill 100,000 people in Britain each
year.
Research claims standardised packaging makes them less appealing
and helps reinforce health messages - so cancer charities are backing
the plans.
Australia's had unbranded packs since 2012
Ireland passed a similar law last year and Australia's had plain
packaging since 2012.
Obviously the tobacco industry isn't happy
The Tobacco Manufacturers' Association argues there's a "complete
lack of evidence" plain packaging will put smokers off.
They say the move will destroy their highly valuable property rights (to
use their logos) and mean brands will be practically unrecognisable
from each other
They think it breaches several UK and EU laws and is
"disproportionate" to the risk of smoking. Some claim it could also
make selling counterfeit cigarettes easier.
Another hit for tobacco firms
Cigarette firms have faced tough rules on advertising for many years
and have had to carry health warnings since the 1970s.
But in the last decade, smoking's been banned in public places, picture
warnings have been brought in on packs and shops have had to stop
displaying cigarettes.
Last year, a ban on smoking in cars with children came in too.
The smokers' lobby group Forest says: "Consumers are fed up being
patronised by politicians of all parties.
"Smokers know there are health risks associated with tobacco. Plain
packaging won't make any difference.
"What next? Standardised packaging for alcohol and sugary drinks?"
Finance Minister Michael Noonan has been warned squeezed
motorists and businesses cannot afford to wait until the end of the
year for a review of spiralling insurance costs to be published.
The Department of Finance is undertaking a review of the motor
insurance market after rapid price increases over the past 12 months
have seen premiums surge 34%.
Speaking in the Dáil in response to a query by Fianna Fáil TD Thomas
Byrne, Mr Noonan reiterated his stance that the review would be
finalised by the end of 2016.
The finance minister came under pressure from Mr Byrne’s Fianna Fáil
colleague, finance spokesperson Michael McGrath, to fast-track the
process, however.
Mr McGrath said he accepted the minister did not have the power to
directly affect insurance costs but warned that the high cost of motor
protection would harm consumers and stunt economic growth if
allowed to persist.
“This issue cannot wait until the end of the year… While the industry
has a role to play in this regard and must have its voice heard, the
voice of consumers also needs to be heard. Deputies hear day in and
day out about dramatic increases in motor insurance premiums.
“These increases are occurring across the board but younger drivers
and the owners of older vehicles, in particular, are being hammered by
increases in insurance premiums.
“The current rate of increase is not sustainable as it will act as a drag
on the economy and impact on the business community. We need to
get to the bottom of the factors driving the increases and then tackle
them,” Mr McGrath said.
The focus of the first phase of the review is on the motor insurance
compensation framework.
Issues in this regard were highlighted by the collapse of Setanta
Insurance and subsequent wrangling over whether the Insurance
Compensation Fund or Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland was liable for
policyholders’ claims.
Mr Noonan said the first phase was “nearing completion” but was
unable to say whether policy initiatives could be introduced once it has
been finalised or whether this would only happen once the entire report
has been published.
The second phase of the review will specifically examine the spiralling
cost of motor premiums which are now 60% more expensive when
compared with January 2014.
“Many factors are involved in the dramatic escalation in motor
insurance premiums, including court awards, the need for a review of
the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, legal costs, false and
exaggerated claims, regulatory oversight, and the lack of transparency
regarding the profits earned by insurance companies. All these issues
must be examined,” Mr McGrath added.
The insurance sector argues an increased number of claims, growth in
the number of people going to court to seek compensation, and low
levels of reserves in the industry are to blame for the hike in premiums.
Industry experts have criticised insurance companies for financial
mismanagement which they claim has contributed to the increases.
motorists and businesses cannot afford to wait until the end of the
year for a review of spiralling insurance costs to be published.
The Department of Finance is undertaking a review of the motor
insurance market after rapid price increases over the past 12 months
have seen premiums surge 34%.
Speaking in the Dáil in response to a query by Fianna Fáil TD Thomas
Byrne, Mr Noonan reiterated his stance that the review would be
finalised by the end of 2016.
The finance minister came under pressure from Mr Byrne’s Fianna Fáil
colleague, finance spokesperson Michael McGrath, to fast-track the
process, however.
Mr McGrath said he accepted the minister did not have the power to
directly affect insurance costs but warned that the high cost of motor
protection would harm consumers and stunt economic growth if
allowed to persist.
“This issue cannot wait until the end of the year… While the industry
has a role to play in this regard and must have its voice heard, the
voice of consumers also needs to be heard. Deputies hear day in and
day out about dramatic increases in motor insurance premiums.
“These increases are occurring across the board but younger drivers
and the owners of older vehicles, in particular, are being hammered by
increases in insurance premiums.
“The current rate of increase is not sustainable as it will act as a drag
on the economy and impact on the business community. We need to
get to the bottom of the factors driving the increases and then tackle
them,” Mr McGrath said.
The focus of the first phase of the review is on the motor insurance
compensation framework.
Issues in this regard were highlighted by the collapse of Setanta
Insurance and subsequent wrangling over whether the Insurance
Compensation Fund or Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland was liable for
policyholders’ claims.
Mr Noonan said the first phase was “nearing completion” but was
unable to say whether policy initiatives could be introduced once it has
been finalised or whether this would only happen once the entire report
has been published.
The second phase of the review will specifically examine the spiralling
cost of motor premiums which are now 60% more expensive when
compared with January 2014.
“Many factors are involved in the dramatic escalation in motor
insurance premiums, including court awards, the need for a review of
the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, legal costs, false and
exaggerated claims, regulatory oversight, and the lack of transparency
regarding the profits earned by insurance companies. All these issues
must be examined,” Mr McGrath added.
The insurance sector argues an increased number of claims, growth in
the number of people going to court to seek compensation, and low
levels of reserves in the industry are to blame for the hike in premiums.
Industry experts have criticised insurance companies for financial
mismanagement which they claim has contributed to the increases.
UberX drivers using personal policies while operating as a paid ride-
share operative are breaking the law and need to check with their
insurance providers to ensure they have appropriate coverage,
suggests Shop Insurance Canada.
“If a vehicle is used for any kind of business, insurance companies
will expect customers to take out a commercial auto policy,” notes a
statement Wednesday from the company, which offers an online
auto insurance quoting tool.
“Drivers working for UberX and using their personal auto insurance
are not properly covered in the event of a collision or other incident.
By the Ontarian and Canadian law, these drivers should be operating
with commercial coverage.”
The rise of Uber and other ride-sharing services has shone a
spotlight on commercial auto insurance coverage, notes the Toronto-
based company.
“It is often the case that customers are not completely clear on the
rules of when a vehicle should be covered by a commercial policy.
This leads to people just sticking with their personal policy, which
can end up being a costly risk,” the statement notes, pointing out
that insurers will “not pay out a claim on a personal policy if the
driver is found to have been using the vehicle for business, or the
driver was an employee of a company.”
Related: Nearly two-thirds of Canadians say Uber should have same
regulations as taxi industry: Angus Reid survey
Shop Insurance Canada notes that vehicle owners falling into the
following criteria are almost certainly in need of commercial auto
insurance:
the vehicle is used to collect or delivers goods, supplies,
food or messages;
the vehicle is used as a method to take passenger for pay
(including ride-sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft);
a vehicle is customized with equipment or goods that
directly support a business, such as permanent tool boxes,
winches and food boxes;
the vehicle is owned by a business or registered to a
business; and
employees are allowed to drive the vehicle for business
purposes.
Uber’s launch in a number of cities across the country had raised
concerns around insurance coverage and protection for drivers and
riders alike.
The Alberta government has introduced new rules to regulate ride-
hailing companies like Uber. Among other things, drivers will need a
professional Class 4 licence, as well as either commercial insurance
or a new insurance policy tailored to the industry.
The position differs from that taken by Saskatchewan, where the
government announced this past March the province would not be
creating special regulations for ride-sharing companies. And earlier
this month in Toronto, city council approved new rules for taxis and
UberX, thereby allowing regular drivers to pick up passengers
without a taxi licence, although both types of drivers must get $2
million in liability insurance.
share operative are breaking the law and need to check with their
insurance providers to ensure they have appropriate coverage,
suggests Shop Insurance Canada.
“If a vehicle is used for any kind of business, insurance companies
will expect customers to take out a commercial auto policy,” notes a
statement Wednesday from the company, which offers an online
auto insurance quoting tool.
“Drivers working for UberX and using their personal auto insurance
are not properly covered in the event of a collision or other incident.
By the Ontarian and Canadian law, these drivers should be operating
with commercial coverage.”
The rise of Uber and other ride-sharing services has shone a
spotlight on commercial auto insurance coverage, notes the Toronto-
based company.
“It is often the case that customers are not completely clear on the
rules of when a vehicle should be covered by a commercial policy.
This leads to people just sticking with their personal policy, which
can end up being a costly risk,” the statement notes, pointing out
that insurers will “not pay out a claim on a personal policy if the
driver is found to have been using the vehicle for business, or the
driver was an employee of a company.”
Related: Nearly two-thirds of Canadians say Uber should have same
regulations as taxi industry: Angus Reid survey
Shop Insurance Canada notes that vehicle owners falling into the
following criteria are almost certainly in need of commercial auto
insurance:
the vehicle is used to collect or delivers goods, supplies,
food or messages;
the vehicle is used as a method to take passenger for pay
(including ride-sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft);
a vehicle is customized with equipment or goods that
directly support a business, such as permanent tool boxes,
winches and food boxes;
the vehicle is owned by a business or registered to a
business; and
employees are allowed to drive the vehicle for business
purposes.
Uber’s launch in a number of cities across the country had raised
concerns around insurance coverage and protection for drivers and
riders alike.
The Alberta government has introduced new rules to regulate ride-
hailing companies like Uber. Among other things, drivers will need a
professional Class 4 licence, as well as either commercial insurance
or a new insurance policy tailored to the industry.
The position differs from that taken by Saskatchewan, where the
government announced this past March the province would not be
creating special regulations for ride-sharing companies. And earlier
this month in Toronto, city council approved new rules for taxis and
UberX, thereby allowing regular drivers to pick up passengers
without a taxi licence, although both types of drivers must get $2
million in liability insurance.
