Tuition fees: Poorest students to get year for free

In Britain the government will have a vote to raise college-fees from £3.375 to £9.000. The proposed rise in tuition fees has made student all over Britain to protest. The Liberal Democrats are still unclear how their 57 MPs will vote even though the party had promised to abolish tuition fees in their election manifesto. Leader Nick Clegg and other Lib Dem MPs even signed a pre-election pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fee.
Universities minister David Willets already said up to 18.000 students from poorer backgrounds could get support for their fees from a new fund if the raise would come through. This fund would significantly increase the number of children from poorer families going to college. These students would have their tuition fees paid for up to two years under new government proposals. Ministers will meet student representatives and consult them on the plans.
The president of the National Union of Students already said the plans won’t get very far. This fund will only have a limited impact. The debt of students leaving the universities will be too big.
There are disagreements between the Lib Dems over the plan to raise tuition fees. Nick Clegg is trying to get a consensus within the party. One of his MPs, Norman Lamb, wants to vote for the proposals. He believes that 25% of the poorest students would pay less than now and this would be an engine for social mobility. While Nick Clegg wants everyone to vote in accordance with the Lib Dem Values. He wants to lower barriers of entry to university.
Labour Leader Ed Milliband wants the Lib Dem MPs to vote against the plan. He believes it the proposals are an act of cultural vandalism. It’s an assault on social mobility and it would leave students with huge debts.
Mr Miliband has an alternative plan for a graduate tax but senior figures within his own party doubt this is workable.

I personally believe this rise in tuition is unfair. A lot of people won’t be able to afford their tuition fee and if they do go to college, many of them will already face huge debt when they graduate. The Liberal Democrats promised to vote against any rise in tuition fee and still some MPs of the party will vote for the proposal. This is outrageous. People voted them to govern because they believed the Lib Dems were against any rise in tuition fees. Politicians, who is ever going to trust them? I never did and I probably never will. It seems everyone has a hidden agenda.

Steven Vonckers

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11920628

In the Gulf of Aden, a pirate ransom becomes the cost of doing business

Piracy is a well known industry in Africa. So far this year there have been 376 attacks on ships with 172 of those being from Somali pirates. 44 ships have actually been hijacked and 40 of those hijackings were made by Somali pirates.
There has been a small increase in frequency but the more alarming part of all has been the growth of the ransoms. The ransoms keep on rising.
The inflation has hit a new peak this month. A $9.5m ransom has been paid for the release of the Samho Dream, a supertanker which was hijacked in the Indian Ocean. Knowing that the ransom is mostly only 40% of the total bill incurred (lawyers, negotiators, crew compensation and penalties for late delivery of cargo), this is quite a big problem.
Even though these ransoms are quite big, the value of a ship and its cargo trumps the amount of ransom. In these cases the payments are made by insurance companies but some are starting to charge more for insurance for ships travelling through the Gulf of Aden off the Somalia coast.
Another problem is the pure risk-reward calculation. The pirates are rarely brought to a court of justice which makes it very attractive to continue in their criminal activities.
Some people are starting to believe western countries aren’t really intervening because the pirates and their militias are the only force that prevent that outright Islamists take control in Somalia. There hasn’t been a real political will to take captured pirates, put them into prison and prosecuting them.
It’s hard to protect ships against these pirates. The European Union try to protect vulnerable shipping but they can only give guidelines for ships to follow. Some ship-owners are even starting to hire armed guards despite the fact it’s a grey area of law.
The author the article concludes that getting rid of piracy would depend on a wholesale change to the political situation in Somalia or a wholesale refusal of ships to transit the Gulf of Aden. He believes both ‘solutions’ are unlikely to happen.

I find it quite shocking that the western world is just looking the other way. It’s quite obvious they don’t want to solve the situation because they don’t want an Islam regime in Somalia. They are sending out the wrong message. Piracy can’t be tolerated and here we are now, tolerating pirates hijacking ships for enormous amounts of ransom.
It’s just a matter of time before there are going to be a lot of casualties on both sides. The ship-owners aren’t naive. They are hiring guards to protect the ships against pirates and who can blame them. Insurance costs are rising and they will keep on rising as long the situation isn’t resolved. People take matters into their own hands eventually and I’m afraid blood will be shed.

Steven Vonckers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/19/pirate-ransom-cost-of-doing-business

French court blames Continental Airlines for fatal Concorde crash

In July 2000, the Concorde crashed near Paris which killed 113 people. After catching fire, the Concorde failed to gain height and crashed into a motel immediately after take-off. All the passengers, nine French crew and four motel employees were killed. What was the cause of this tragedy?

The court ruled that the Concorde crashed due to the illegal repair by Continental Airlines. A strip of titanium fell on the runway from a Continental DC-10 that took off four minutes before the Concorde. This caused a fire and explosion just after the take-off.

The court at Pointoise, near Paris, rejected the defender’s counter-argument that the repair by Air France was the real cause of the tragedy and not the one by Continental Airlines. The judicial investigation took seven years. The French aviation officials were found partially guilty because they hided evidence of structural weaknesses concerning the Concorde.

The judge ignored this element and found Continental Airlines guilty of manslaughter and ordered the company to pay fines and damages of at least €1,2 million. John Taylor, the Continental mechanic was also convicted for manslaughter and has a 15-month suspended sentence. (Both said they would appeal.)

“EADS”, the successor to Concorde’s French manufacturer “Aerospatiale”, should pay 30 per cent of the damages already paid out to the families of the victims. The remaining 70 per cent must be paid by Continental.

It is very sad that such things happen. Unfortunately for the friends and families of the victims. They received an amount of money as compensation for their losses but the money can never replace their sorrow. It is disappointed that while it could be prevented, no one stood up and took responsibility.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-court-blames-continental-airlines-for-fatal-concorde-crash-2153054.html

Daphné V.E.

Knox makes emotional court appeal

Last year was Amanda Knox convicted for murder of her British roommate Meredith Kercher. At that time was Knox 21 years old. Miss Kercher from Coulsdon was found dead on the 2nd of November 2007 in her bedroom. She stayed in a house in the Umbrian hilltop town that she shared with Knox and others during her year abroad. Her throat had been slit and her semi-naked body was partially covered by a duvet.

Knox who is now 23 years old was convicted for 26 years for the murder of Meredith Kercher who was 21 years old. Knox said that she was an innocent victim of an enormous mistake, namely a sex game that was taken to the extreme. Her Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito was also found guilty and sentenced to 25 years.

Knox appealed and during the appeal in Perugia (Italy), she said that she isn’t a dangerous, diabolical, uncaring or violent person like this was described by the prosecution. She burst in to tears when she spoke about Miss Kercher as a dear friend.

Knox's lawyers believe they have new evidence to clear her of murder and will try to introduce a new witness.

The court is expected to rule on these requests at the next hearing on the 18th of December but if Knox's appeal is rejected, she could face a longer sentence behind bars.

I can’t come to an opinion because of the difficulty of the situation. Amanda Knox was very emotional during the 20-minute plea and it looked sincere, but it could also be that she was acting. She says that she had been broken (figurative) by three years behind bars. If the lawyers of Knox can’t bring new evidence or a new witness, then the chance is very small that she will walk free, even smaller than it is already. I have to know more about the case to decide whether she ‘deserves’ 26 years for murder of Meredith Kercher.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/216836/Knox-makes-emotional-court-appeal

Daphné V.E.

Facebook sued by Lamebook

After Facebook suing Teachbook and Placebook, it is now being sued itself by Lamebook.
Lamebook is a website which mocks Facebook about funny comments, photos... people post on the most popular social-network website of the moment. Facebook is being sued about trademark infringment.
It is true that Lamebook has a very similar logo and look. Facebook complained about this and already threatened to sue Lamebook in March but they never did and Lamebook never changed.
Although Lamebook looks a little like Facebook, it doesn't have the same purpose. On Lamebook, you can't start a social network. You can only post funny comments, found on the Facebook website. It is in fact just a parody.
Facebook is afraid that the website is an improper attempt to trade off of Facebook's popularity and fame. In my eyes, this isn't how it goes. I think that when people see Lamebook, they will get curious about Facebook. It is true that Facebook is made fun of and I do understand they don't like this part but I can't see Lamebook as a real threat. I have to admit that some parts of the Facebook website are a little bit ridiculous but it has its good qualities too and everyone who wants to critisize it should have seen this side too in my opinion.
When Facebook sued Placebook, it resolved in Placebook changing its name. It is normal that you can't copy a concept and you can't just copy a layout but Facebook is very well known and I don't think they have to be afraid about competition. Placebook also refers to Facebook but it is more about places then people.
I don't think that Lamebook will win. Facebook was first so I can't see how they are being sued due to trademark infringement. Facebook has gotten very big and is still growing. I don't think Lamebook will cause problems.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/09/strike-lamebook-sues-facebook-trademark-wars/

Mother who killed brain-damaged son loses appeal

In 2008, Frances Inglis, 58 years old from Dagenham (East London), killed her brain-damaged 22-year-old son Tom.

Tom Inglis suffered severe head injuries when he fell out of a moving ambulance in July 2007. He tried to get out of the ambulance because he didn’t want to be taken to hospital after being involved in a minor pub fight.

Tom’s mother gave him a fatal heroin injection to end his ‘living hell’ and she was ordered to serve a minimum of nine years in January for attempted murder. Frances never denied that she gave her son deliberately a fatal overdose in the hospital bed. She lost her appeal against life sentence for murder but her sentence has been reduced to five years.

Inglis’s lawyers argue that the trial judge was wrong by not letting the jury decide whether her defence of provocation was valid. Her son was in constant pain and the only legal way to let hem die was to apply to the high court for an order to withhold food and nutrition. This would result in a slow and painful death and that was certainly not an option for Frances and her son.

Another mother, Kay Gilderale, helped her 31-year-old daughter to kill herself. Just a week after Inglis was sent to jail, Gilderale walked free from court with a 12-month conditional discharge. Frances’s husband and her two sons supported her the whole time and were present at the appeal court hearings.

It is difficult to decide whether or not Frances Inglis should go to jail or not. On one hand, it is certain that she deliberately murdered her son but on the other hand there was a "valid" reason. Her son was living in constant pain and as a mother, you want to do everything to make sure that your child lives in a ‘perfect fairytale’. It is not justified to apply for an order to withhold food and nutrition. A slow an painful death was the only legal way to let him die, but not the most ethical one. I certainly do not say that giving your son a fatal overdose of heroin is ethical!
I would give Frances a 12-month conditional discharge, just like Kay Gilderale.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/12/mother-killed-disabled-son-appeal

Daphné V.E.

$44 million for Mr. Genius Bar

Everyone who hears the word Apple nowadays thinks about the Ipod, Iphone, Imac or the Ipad. Although I remember an apple originally being a sort of fruit.

The last three to four years apple have made an enormous economical progress. Most people who have bought an Apple device are hooked for life to the brand. The marketing technique Apple uses is just pure genius.

When you read that one man is getting a $44 million, you think it is an absurd amount of money. Most of the time I concur when managers, CEO’s, etc. get these kinds of paychecks but in the case of Ron Johnson I thought he even should have had more.

I’ve been to an Apple store myself and I have to admit, I was dazzled. It’s just as the brands products, innovative and pure class. You get to see the product up close in front, feel it and use it. It’s a pleasure to hold a product which has been made to perfection by the Apple designers. Thanks to the concept of Ron Johnson this is possible and Apple have made an enormous profit because of it.

The prices of Apple products are not to say high at least. But because of the Apple store people are actually seduced to buy an Apple product. I’ve been seduced myself and even though sometimes you aren’t happy after you have been seduced. This time I really was.

Steven Vonckers

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/30/44-million-for-mr-genius-bar/

LVMH claims to buy shares without wanting to take control

This year, the sale of luxury goods could climb to the highest level since 2007. According to Hermes, their sales may climb 12 percent this year. LVMH - Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA - made 10.3 percent of profit last year, while Hermes made 15.1 percent.

LVMH already bought 14.2 percent assets in Hermes International SCA and is now talking about a raise to 17.1 percent. LVMH is the world's largest maker of luxury goods but claims not to have an interest in taking control of its rival, launching a tender offer or seek board representation. LVMH is just seeking to be a long-term shareholder of Hermes. The company is willing to pay 1.45 billion euro's for this purchase.

Former Chief Executive Officer Jean-Louis Dumas died the 1st of May. Ever since, the Hermes shares have climbed 77 percent in Paris, on speculation that the company's founding family may be more willing to sell. LVMH claims to fully support the strategy implemented by the founding family and the management team.

Buying 14.2 percent of the company stands equal to buying 15,016,000 shares. This all has to be paid of course. Therefore, LVMH is willing to sell the rest of its drinks unit to Diageo Plc. They could get 10.5 billion pounds out of this. Now Diageo already owns 34 percent of the drinks unit, after this, they would obtain full ownership of several brands, including Moet champagne and Hennessy cognac. This money is certainly welcome for LVMH. Shares were bought with an average price of 80 euro's a share. On the 22nd of October, the shares closed at 176.20 euro's in Paris trading.

In my opinion, LVMH will want to gain more control after buying all those assets of Hermes. When you make an investment like this, you want to get more out of it according to me. They paid a lot of money and even sold their drinks unit, you don't act this drastically without a greater purpose. I think they will want to have a say in board meetings.
They may say they respect the family business - and I really hope they do - but they are still rivals and that concerns me.
I couldn't find information about the reaction of Hermes but I hope they won't give away too much control.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-23/lvmh-buys-14-2-of-hermes-says-won-t-seek-control.html

Citigroup and Terra Firma begin legal battle over EMI buyout

The article is about the selling of the venerable record label EMI which has been the home for the Beatles, Black Sabbath, Snoop Dogg and Lily Allen for 4 billion pounds.

US attorney Boies David claims that David Wormsley of Citigroup misled his client (Guy Hands: founder of Terra Firma) into believing that there was another bidder for the record company. Hands and Wormsley were once close friends but didn’t acknowledge each other in court.

Wormsley did a lot of effort to win the trust of Hands by telling him that he would search for the best possible outcome.

Here is a conflict of interest. Wormsley told EMI’s chief executive that he and Guy Hands on several of occasions discussed about the purchase. Citigroup was the advisor to both parties. Terra Firma confirmed its bid for EMI after they still believed there was another bidder, namely the US private equity firm Cerberus. Citigroup gave Terra Firma a deadline to decide whether they would buy EMI or not at the request of another bidder.

Boies claimed Citigroup knew that Hands would not be able to withdraw once he had placed a bid, for fear of damaging his reputation as an important player in private equity.

Theodore Wells, Citigroup’s council, said that Wormsley is an honest person who never misled Hands by lying about the interest of Cerberus. Hands buys and sells companies and tells his investors they will make a lot of money. Now this deal appeared to be a bad deal so he says he was tricked by David Wormsley rather than take responsibility. Citigroup also invested in the deal so they also suffered and didn’t at any time trick Terra Firma into buying EMI.

I think that Hands wouldn’t invest 4 billion pounds without any research whether or not it is a good investment. It could be that he is not willing to take responsibility for his acts and by going to court, the deal might not have existed when the court of New York pronounces Wormsley guilty.

Daphné V.E.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/18/citigroup-terra-firma-legal-emi