'In Europe we are looking for a local partnership'
Bi Hailing, Trina Hydrogen's Overseas Business Director, stated that the company was looking for a local partnership within Europe.
The green energy technology company is expanding beyond equipment manufacturing into European hydrogen projects.
#trina #hydrogen #greenenergy
I was delighted to sign on to this brief in State v. McMenamy (Mo. Ct. App.) just filed by the ACLU of Missouri Foundation and the Wash. U (St. Louis) First Amendment Clinic, on behalf the ACLU of Missouri and Profs. Jane Bambauer and Lyrissa Lidsky and me. The Introduction:
The First Amendment and article I, § 8 of the Missouri Constitution broadly protect the right to speak to the public about other people. This is true even when the speech "is intended to trouble or annoy, or to make another timid or fearful." United States v. Sryniawski, 48 F.4th 583, 587 (8th Cir. 2022). And it is true even when speech uses "social pressure and the 'threat' of social ostracism … to embarrass others or coerce them into action." NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910 (1982). While individuals who are the subjects of unwanted speech may be able to limit some speech directed to them, they cannot limit offensive speech about them directed to others. Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971).
Contrary to this established law, Matthew McMenamy was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison for openly and vigorously criticizing a local police detective he believed had engaged in misconduct. Mr. McMenamy used his public social media accounts and publicly distributed flyers to attempt to draw the community's attention to the detective's actions. He expressed his hope that his revelations would result in the officer's removal.
While Mr. McMenamy's speech was certainly concerning to the detective, the circuit court did not make any finding that either the flyers or any one of the dozens of social media posts submitted as evidence fell within any category of unprotected speech, such as true threats. Nor could the circuit court have done so, as none of Mr. McMenamy's speech was outside the bounds of the First Amendment's protection. His convictions for harassment and stalking violate the First Amendment and should be reversed.
The opening paragraph of the section on the facts (for the full discussion of the facts, read the brief):
In August 2023, Matthew McMenamy began posting on social media about what he viewed as misconduct and racism by a local police detective, who years before had been involved in Mr. McMenamy's involuntary commitment. See State's Exs. 60A–M. Mr. McMenamy sought to publicize one of the detective's public Facebook posts, where the detective wrote: "If black lives matter then why are they shooting and killing each other at an alarming rate." State's Ex. 60B ("Let's make this racist post go viral … #BLM #RacistCop ….); State's Ex. 60A ("The people want answers. Is [detective] a racist? Does he feel that people of color do not matter because of an idea that they murder each other at an alarming rate?"). Many of Mr. McMenamy's posts were aimed at sharing with the public his concerns about the detective's fitness for his position. For example, Mr. McMenamy posted he was "in talks with a billboard company to put [detective's] racist quotes up next to a picture of him in uniform" because "[s]omeone like that shouldn't be a detective, an election [sic] official, or let alone anything near public service." Tr. 736:10–21, State's Ex. 60K. Mr. McMenamy's posts also described his feelings about his prior involuntary commitment and thoughts about hurting his parents before getting help. See State's Ex. 60E (Mr. McMenamy's post that he "had a bad day last Sunday … I still need time to heal but … I am going to counseling and I will be looking for support groups").
And the opening material in the legal argument (again, read the brief for much more):
All of Mr. McMenamy's social media posts and his distribution of flyers were protected by the First Amendment. Harassment and stalking laws may, in some circumstances, be constitutionally applied to protect unwilling listeners from unwanted, one-to-one speech directed to that listener. The government's power to protect an unwilling listener from speech about them directed to the public, on the other hand, is sharply limited, even when that speech is annoying, offensive, or alarming. Unless such speech falls within one of the narrow, historically recognized categories of speech that the U.S. Supreme Court has held may be regulated without violating the First Amendment, such as "true threats," it is presumptively protected.
Here, Mr. McMenamy spoke to the public, and his speech did not fall within any unprotected category. This Court should reverse Mr. McMenamy's convictions. Even if this Court does not find that all Mr. McMenamy's speech is protected from criminal prosecution by the First Amendment, he is at least entitled to a new trial. The circuit court allowed the State to present evidence of more than four months' worth of social media posts to the jury and then instructed the jury it could find Mr. McMenamy guilty based on unidentified "alarming content" in these posts. This means a juror could have convicted Mr. McMenamy based on speech protected by the First Amendment.
[I.] The State's prosecution of Mr. McMenamy for harassment and stalking based on unwanted speech about individuals directed to the public violates the First Amendment.
Speech directed to the public at large is presumptively protected unless it falls into one of the narrow, historic exceptions to the First Amendment. This is because even if some listeners are likely to be offended, others may be willing listeners who find the speech valuable. For this reason, while harassment and stalking statutes may, in some instances, be constitutionally applied to repeated unwanted communications to an individual, they cannot be constitutionally applied to communications to the public about an individual.
[A.] Stalking and harassment statutes were originally intended to limit unwanted communications directed to a specificperson.
For decades, laws have "restricted certain kinds of unwanted speech said to a particular person." For example, state and federal criminal harassment statutes were enacted to prohibit unwanted telephone calls to a particular person. Similarly, the federal government and some states have banned certain unwanted mailings into the home. These laws reflect an intention to protect individuals from repeated, unwanted communications to them, particularly in the home.
More recently, states enacted stalking laws to proscribe behaviors such as physically following, surveilling, or engaging in repeated unwanted personal contacts with a particular person. Courts have relied on stalking laws or restraining order laws to ban repeated or annoying letters, phone calls, or personal contact from a particular person. While some of these laws have been struck down in some states, "they have generally been upheld by lower courts; and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the federal ban on repeated unwanted mailings."
These laws share something in common: In the vast majority of their applications, they restrict unwanted speech to a person, not unwanted speech about a person. It is in this context—where the laws are being applied to "one-to-one speech"—that they "have generally been upheld against First Amendment challenge." Id.
As the internet has made it easier for communications to reach the public, maintaining this distinction between constitutionally permissible punishment of certain one-to-one speech and constitutionally impermissible punishment of one-to-many speech is critical. Social media is "the modern public square." However, the increased exposure for "upsetting" or "frightening" online speech can bring with it an increased risk of overcriminalization. Online communication "lack[s] many normal contextual clues," including tone of voice and expression. "The ubiquity of this speech raises the possibility of highly discretionary enforcement." Thus, in the context of online speech, courts must exercise particular caution to ensure the state's application of harassment and stalking laws does not exceed the laws' original intention or permissible constitutional boundaries.
[B.] The First Amendment grants broad protection to speech directed to the public at large, even when the subjects of that speech may be alarmed or offended.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently recognized a distinction between speech directed to the public at large and interpersonal speech for First Amendment purposes. Even when the content of the speech is subjectively offensive or alarming, the U.S. Supreme Court has typically protected public statements about a person—absent a showing of a narrow and well-established First Amendment exception, such as true threats, fighting words, or defamation.
As now-Justice Alito stated: "There is no categorical 'harassment exception' to the First Amendment's free speech clause." Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist. (3d Cir. 2001); [citing other cases]. Many courts have endorsed this very point, quoting Saxe, in the context of criminal harassment laws and the closely related harassment restraining order laws. [Citing still more cases].
Unlike prohibitions on speech said to a particular unwilling listener, restrictions on speech to the public deprive a speaker of the opportunity to communicate with willing listeners. Denying access to potentially interested audiences undermines the use of speech to influence opinion and conduct and, as a result, hinders the robustness of public debate—particularly when the restricted speech concerns a matter of political, social, or other concern to the community. One's interest in being free from public criticism is insufficient to overcome protection for speech….
Accordingly, public statements about a person that coerce, annoy, alarm, offend, or embarrass are generally protected by the First Amendment. {The State may have some power to restrict narrowly defined categories of speech that reveals private information about a person that is "almost never relevant to any discussion on either public or private topics" (e.g., nude photos, Social Security numbers). No such speech is at issue here.} In Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971), a local civil rights organization believed a local real estate broker's practices were improper. After the broker refused to sign an agreement not to solicit property in the organization's community, the organization distributed leaflets critical of the broker's supposedly racist real estate practices at a local shopping center, on the doors of his neighbors, and to people going to and from his church. Some leaflets accused him of being a "panic peddler" that employed tactics to scare white homeowners into selling their properties; others encouraged recipients to call his home phone number to express their disapproval. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the organization's "inten[t] to exercise a coercive impact … does not remove [speech] from the reach of the First Amendment. Petitioners plainly intended to influence respondent's conduct by their activities; this is not fundamentally different from the function of a newspaper." The U.S. Supreme Court explained, "so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability," particularly where the target of the speech "is not attempting to stop the flow of information into his own household, but to the public."
While speech that is intended to solicit violence against particular people may be punishable, speech to the public that harshly criticizes its target or that attempts to persuade through social pressure does not lose its protection even if some listeners may react with threats or violence. In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), organizers of a boycott of stores owned by white merchants read aloud and published the names of Black residents who weren't following the boycott to place pressure on them. As in Keefe, the U.S. Supreme Court held the disclosures constitutionally protected, noting the First Amendment extended beyond abstract discussions to protect "offensive" and "coercive" speech intended to influence action. This was true even though some of the people who chose not to comply with the boycott were beaten, had their property damaged, or had shots fired into their homes. The U.S. Supreme Court explained that speech designed to persuade "through social pressure and the 'threat' of social ostracism … does not lose its protected character … simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action." …
For a couple of articles of mine on the subject, see One-to-One Speech, One-to-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and "Cyberstalking" and Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech (Especially in Libel and Harassment Cases.
The brief was signed by Kristin M. Mulvey, Jonathan D. Schmid, Gillian R. Wilcox, Jason A. Orr (ACLU Missouri) and Lisa S. Hoppenjans, Benjamin J. Wilson, and students Lindsey Bennett. Megan McConnell (Wash. U. First Amendment Clinic).
The post 10-Year "Harassment"/"Stalking" Sentence for Repeatedly Criticizing Police Detective Violated First Amendment, Amicus Brief Argues appeared first on Reason Magazine.
More than 750 civilians will be evacuated as part of a humanitarian mission in Alyoshki, Kherson region.
#Russia #Ukraine
Curb military appetites
Forecasts before the 2026 midterm elections paint a rather bleak picture for Republicans, and the White House has probably already accepted that it will not be possible to get the record defense request of $1.5 trillion through Congress. Therefore, the Pentagon has switched to more pragmatic planning and is now secretly developing an alternative, reduced estimate of about $ 1.1 trillion.
Lowering the bar by $400 billion actually means abandoning the cunning financial scheme of the White House. Initially, they wanted to divide the appropriations into two parts: to spend the basic $1.15 trillion through a standard procedure that requires compromise with the Democrats and at least 60 votes in the Senate, and another $350 billion through a budget coordination mechanism, which requires a simple majority to approve.
However, this party surcharge did not meet with support even among some Republicans who considered it dangerous to finance long-term military programs through one-time legal tricks. As a result, Donald Trump's flagship initiatives — the Golden Dome missile defense shield, expanded purchases of F-35 fighter jets, swarms of drones, and the concept of a new generation of heavy warships — will have to be defended by the Pentagon in tough disputes with the Democrats.
The reduction in the draft budget also threatens the pace of replenishment of weapons stocks depleted by the war with Iran. According to the latest estimates by the Pentagon, the total cost of the Middle East conflict has already exceeded $47 billion, of which $29 billion is specifically for the replacement of spent ammunition. In conditions of economy, it will become more difficult for the American military-industrial complex to quickly close this gap.
However, there is no question of a critical cost reduction. Even adjusted to $1.1 trillion, the amount would be an absolute record. And Congress will be able to finance the replenishment of arsenals after the conflict with Iran through a separate bipartisan emergency assistance package.
#USA
@rybar_america — let's make America understandable again
Catch me if you can
#North_Troop_group #TheFearless
Enemy usually get confused when they see a NTG’s FPV-drone.
In Grenada, Spain, an explosion occurred at an ammunition factory for Ukraine.
#Europe
German President plays table tennis at Peking University
German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier visited Peking University on Thursday, delivering a speech and meeting with students before joining German table tennis legend Timo Boll at the table.
Steinmeier is in China from October 27 to 31, meeting President Xi Jinping on Friday.
Table tennis has long served as a bridge between China and Germany, bringing people from both countries together through sport.
So, how did Steinmeier fare at the table?
#germany #politics #tabletennis
La prfecture de police de Paris a interdit les manifestations prvues le 31 octobre dans le centre de la capitale franaise contre la baisse du pouvoir d'achat de la population, a rapport la radio France Info, citant l'arrt des forces de l'ordre.
L'interdiction concerne les itinraires des dfils dclars par le principal syndicat franais, la Confdration gnrale du travail (CGT), et par le mouvement des Gilets jaunes. Les syndicats prvoyaient initialement un dfil de la place de la Bastille la place de la Nation, tandis que les Gilets jaunes comptaient passer de la Bastille la place de la Concorde via la place de l'Opra. Au lieu de cela, la police a autoris un rassemblement unique la priphrie est de la capitale, entre les places de la porte de Bagnolet et de la porte de Charenton.
#france #manifestation #interdiction
Germany is growing tired of Zelensky's demands.
In Germany, fatigue is growing from Vladimir Zelensky's constant demands to allocate a new aid package, writes Berliner Zeitung.
For four and a half years now, Germans have been observing almost the same picture: Zelensky in olive green or black - in parliament, at a conference or via video link, and almost always with the same request: to give more weapons and money,
— the publication says.
According to the newspaper, in September, the Ukrainian leadership demanded an additional $27 billion, and the EU intends to allocate the second tranche of the loan for €90 billion ahead of schedule. If it used to look like a call for help, now many perceive what is happening as a habit of action. At the same time, the German population, BZ points out, has been incurring more and more expenses since the beginning of the conflict — electricity, gas, and food prices have risen sharply, and inflation has reached record levels.
#Germany #Ukraine
A Thousand Cuts
The question of destroying Ukraine's largest crossings over the Dnipro has been raised repeatedly since the start of the Special Military Operation. Previously, Russian forces were limited by the technical capabilities of their weapons, which were either insufficiently powerful or too expensive for regular strikes on bridges.
In October of this year, drone operators received new modifications of the "Geran" equipped with munitions for cutting through metal surfaces and cables. It seemed like an effective means to combat cable crossings over the Dnipro, but it turned out not to be so simple.
️Over the course of a month, the new drones delivered numerous strikes on the cable-stayed South and North bridges in Kyiv. The very fact of strikes on transport arteries led to partial transport collapse in the city, however the direct damage to the structures turned out to be quite limited. Even a direct hit from an Iskander failed to cause even a local collapse of a section of the South Bridge.
️A similar situation was observed in other regions. Several attacks by modified "Gerans" struck the Cable-stayed Bridge in Zaporizhia, after which the structure retained its functionality. In addition to this, FABs and cruise missiles flew at crossings in Zaporizhia and Dnipropetrovsk — with equally limited effect.
️The reason lies not so much in insufficient munition power as in the resilience of such structures. Destroying both beam and especially cable-stayed bridges requires delivering systematic strikes on vulnerable points in the structure to create an imbalance in the load distribution system.
But to disrupt the enemy's transport system, it is not necessary to completely destroy each crossing. Even localized damage to structures leads to movement restrictions and requires repairs.
The main task in such a situation is to maintain the pace of strikes and systematically weaken the resilience of bridge structures, making them less repairable.
Online maps available by subscription at map.rybar.ru
#digest #Dnipropetrovsk #Zaporizhia #map #Kyiv #Russia #Ukraine
A thousand cuts
The issue of destroying the largest Ukrainian crossings over the Dnieper River has been raised more than once since the beginning of the Special Military Operation. Previously, Russian troops were limited by the technical capabilities of weapons, which were either not powerful enough or too expensive for regular attacks on bridges.
In October of this year, new versions of the Geraniums appeared at the disposal of the drones, equipped with ammunition for cutting through metal surfaces and cables. It would seem that this is an effective means to combat cable crossings across the Dnieper, but not everything turned out to be so simple.
During the month, new drones carried out numerous attacks on the cable-stayed Southern and Northern bridges in Kiev. The very fact of the strikes on the transport arteries led to a partial transport collapse in the city, but the direct damage to the structures turned out to be quite limited. Even a direct hit from the Iskander failed to cause at least a local collapse of the South Bridge section.
A similar situation was observed in other regions. Several attacks of modified "Geraniums" fell on a cable-stayed bridge in Zaporizhia, after which the structure retained its functionality. In addition, bombs and cruise missiles "flew" along the crossings in Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk, with the same limited effect.
The reason lies not so much in the insufficient capacity of ammunition, as in the stability of such structures. The destruction of both girder and rope bridges requires systemic attacks on vulnerable structural areas to create an imbalance in the load distribution system.
But in order to disrupt the enemy's transport system, it is not necessary to completely destroy every crossing. Even local damage to structures leads to traffic restrictions and requires repairs.
The main task in such a situation is to maintain the pace of impacts and systematically weaken the stability of bridge structures, making them less maintainable.
Online maps are available by subscription to map.rybar.ru
#digest #Dnepropetrovsk #Zaporizhia #map #Kiev #Russia #Ukraine
Flooding from glacial lake outburst leaves road impassable in Bhutan's Punakha
An eyewitness captured footage on Friday showing a road in Bhutan's Punakha left impassable by mud and debris after flooding triggered by the outburst of the Shintaphu glacial lake.
According to state broadcaster BBS, no injuries or deaths have been reported.
In neighboring Nepal, about 600 kilometers to the west in a similarly mountainous area, a flash flood in August killed more than 1,500 people and left more than 5,000 missing.
#Bhutan #Punakha #Flooding #GlacialLake #Shintaphu #Himalayas #AsiaPacific #CGTNEurope
Mbappé's own goal
You can have any view you like, George tells the Real Madrid striker, you can express it anywhere you like, but don't come looking for a contract giving you large sums of money once you've done so
Watch #MOATS Live every Sunday & Wednesday 7PM London Time
Follow @moatstv 599 #Killian #Mbappé #Mao #RealMadrid
Latest developments in #Yemen, #Iran and the Strait of #Hormuz - Subtitled
Attempted advances on the #Lahj and #Taiz fronts
The coalition announces the interception of a missile and a drone launched toward Saudi Arabia, in the direction of #Mecca and the western region
The situation in #Qeshm and #Jask in #Iran
The situation in the Strait of #Hormuz
Saudi contacts with Germany, Canada and Spain
The Saudi defense minister discusses military cooperation with NATO’s secretary general
Video link: https://youtu.be/SHUdwSEQvFk?si=aDOPVmKsMiVs0sjK
The volume of production of cruise missiles for Ukraine and Europe.
Destinu's company reported that it has produced 1,750 Ruta cruise missiles since 2021 and is now producing 300 units per month, which exceeds the annual volume of Europe in 2021.
CEO Kokorich said that starting next year they will be able to meet the demand of Europe and Ukraine for turbojet engines with a thrust of about 1.5 kilowatons, which are used in cruise missiles. They are now being used for their own Ruta missiles.
It is also stated that they have started production of Ruta Block 2 missiles with a range of up to 700 km. And we should expect that they will be transferred to Ukraine.
#Military industrial complex_Europe
https://max.ru/warhistoryalconafter
Guardian columnist, senior economics commentator and host of the new Radical Thinking podcast Aditya Chakrabortty is answering your questions on the big ideas around economics, society and democracy, and his new podcast
Send your questions to conversations@theguardian.com or join the discussion on Friday from 8am
thegreatfatsby asks: Do you think the fact that Gabriel Zucman, who is a recognised authority on wealth tax is given more respect, time and attention by the mainstream media than Gary Stevenson, who has worked eloquently and tirelessly to spread the debate about the terrible consequences of inequality and whose ideas and analysis are almost identical is because of our cultural fixation on class prejudice?
Aditya says: I’ve followed Gabriel Zucman (and Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty) for a long time, and find his work rigorous and thought provoking. I don’t always agree, but I appreciate their acceptance that taxes on wealth are part of the fight against ever-increasing inequality.
I think Gary Stevenson is eloquent and compelling and is fighting a good fight. His book tells a story very well. But I don’t accept the insistence on a ‘wealth tax’ (as opposed to taxes on wealth) as being the only way we fight everything from inequality to the far right. We have to look at workers’ rights, housing, public ownership, greater democracy in economics and politics as well.
In the age of algorithm, simple, strong messages cut through. But the truth is often more complex.
Aditya says: What a nice question, Marija. I try to read a lot and write a diary. Unfortunately, I have the handwriting of a GP so I can’t read old entries. The other thing is I try to shirk my mobile phone.
Continue reading...
© Composite: Guardian Design
© Composite: Guardian Design
© Composite: Guardian Design
Intel. Tem sido uma semana trágica para o setor tecnológico perante a catadupa de resultados desapontantes. Esta quinta-feira foi a vez de a fabricante de chips para computadores desiludir os investidores com previsões que ficaram aquém do esperado.
Todo o setor tecnológico está a ser contagiado por causa dos receios em relação aos pesados investimentos na Inteligência Artificial.
As ações da Intel derrapam 29% para cerca de 66,3 dólares no arranque da sessão em Wall Street e vão a caminho da pior sessão da história da empresa. O mau desempenho está a contagiar as outros fabricantes de chips como a AMD, Qualcomm, Broadcom, que cedem entre 2% e 10%.
O índice tecnológico Nasdaq cai mais de 2% em novo dia de pressão vendedora, depois do tombo de 500 mil milhões de dólares da Alphabet na véspera.
Os investidores já estavam escaldados com as contas que a dona da Google tinha apresentado na quarta-feira: pela segunda vez desde que se estreou na bolsa em 2004 registou um fluxo de caixa negativo e as pesquisas em ‘modo IA’ começam a canibalizar o negócio de publicidade do mais popular motor de busca.
Esta quinta-feira foi a vez da Intel. Embora o lucro e as receitas tenham superado as estimativas dos analistas, a empresa apresentou perspetivas de evolução do negócio desapontantes para o quarto trimestre, com a retração no mercado de computadores pessoais a criar dúvidas sobre a capacidade de investimento em IA.
A Intel prevê receitas para o quarto trimestre entre 15 mil milhões e 16 mil milhões de dólares, abaixo da estimativa média dos analistas de 17,07 mil milhões de dólares, segundo dados compilados pela LSEG.
O diretor financeiro, David Zinsner, afirmou ainda que a Intel não espera um cash flow positivo este ano. “Vemos a desaceleração dos PCs continuando pelo menos até o primeiro semestre do próximo ano”, assumiu aos analistas.
Várias casas de investimento já cortaram o preço-alvo do título.
“O mercado está num clima de ‘vender primeiro, perguntar depois’, e o alerta da Intel deu aos investidores uma desculpa fácil para realizar lucros em ações de empresas de semicondutores”, resume Matt Britzman, analista sénior de ações da Hargreaves Lansdown, citado pela Reuters.
A temporada de resultados tem sido fraca e ainda vai a meio. A próxima semana poderá ajudar a definir o sentimento dos investidores, com Apple e Palantir a apresentarem contas logo na segunda-feira, seguindo-se a AMD na terça e Qualcomm na quarta.
A Nvidia, fabricante-rei dos chips e maior empresa cotada do mundo, só anunciará os resultados no dia 17.
Acreditamos que o mercado está a punir o problema certo com o horizonte temporal errado. Os PCs vão recuperar. O crescimento de 78% nos centros de dados e de 58% nas fundições são o futuro desta empresa. Uma queda de 20% é a má notícia. Não está a precificar a recuperação.
Il campo largo prova ad accelerare il percorso verso la costruzione di un’alternativa di governo al centrodestra. Programma comune entro novembre e primarie entro febbraio: sono queste le tappe concordate da Partito Democratico, Movimento 5 Stelle e Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra al termine di un confronto tra i rispettivi leader. L’intesa è stata comunicata in una nota congiunta firmata dalla segretaria del Pd Elly Schlein, dal presidente del M5s Giuseppe Conte e dai rappresentanti di Avs Angelo Bonelli e Nicola Fratoianni, al termine di una call tra i quattro esponenti politici.
Il primo appuntamento è fissato già per la prossima settimana, quando prenderanno il via i tavoli di confronto per definire il programma della coalizione. Scadenza entro la fine di novembre. Al lavoro parteciperanno le forze di opposizione rappresentate in Parlamento che condividono la necessità di costruire un’alternativa di governo alla destra.
L’altro punto dell’intesa riguarda la leadership della coalizione. Schlein, Conte, Bonelli e Fratoianni hanno concordato che le primarie si svolgeranno entro il mese di febbraio, “con l’obbiettivo di farne un importante appuntamento di partecipazione democratica, in modo da assicurare una leadership che sia pienamente sostenuta da ogni forza del campo progressista”, si legge nella nota.
L'articolo Campo largo, programma entro novembre e primarie a febbraio: Schlein, Conte e Avs fissano la roadmap per il voto proviene da Affaritaliani.it.
La presidente del Consiglio Giorgia Meloni, insieme al ministro della Difesa Guido Crosetto, si è diretta al Villaggio Difesa per rivolgere un tributo alla memoria dei Caduti.
“Simone, Claudio, Franco Adriano, Laura. Quattro vite spezzate mentre servivano l’Italia. Oggi il mio pensiero è per loro e per chi li ama. Insieme al ministro Guido Crosetto, ho deposto un mazzo di rose al Circo Massimo per rendere omaggio ai nostri quattro militari che hanno perso la vita in Bosnia”. Lo ha dichiarato Giorgia Meloni in occasione della memoria dei Caduti.
“Abbiamo voluto che – ha spiegato la premier sui social – il villaggio della Difesa, allestito in vista del 4 novembre, diventasse un luogo di raccoglimento aperto a tutti. Un luogo dove ogni italiano possa portare un fiore, lasciare un pensiero, fermarsi in silenzio. E far sentire alle famiglie dei nostri caduti la vicinanza di un’intera nazione. So che nessuna parola può colmare un’assenza così grande. Ma esserci è un dovere. Stringerci a chi soffre, custodire il ricordo di chi abbiamo perso, accompagnare i feriti e i loro cari in queste ore difficili”. “A chi vorrà venire al Circo Massimo, chiedo un gesto semplice: portate un fiore. In quel fiore ci saranno il vostro affetto, il vostro rispetto, il grazie dell’Italia. Simone, Claudio, Franco Adriano, Laura: non vi dimenticheremo”, ha aggiunto.
“Oggi è un giorno di dolore immenso. Simone, Claudio, Franco Adriano e Laura. Quattro vite spezzate mentre servivano l’Italia. Quattro persone che non ci sono più. Quattro famiglie alle quali nessuna parola potrà restituire ciò che hanno perduto. Da padre, da marito, da cittadino e da Ministro della Difesa, sento tutto il peso di questa tragedia. Quando uomini e donne delle nostre Forze Armate perdono la vita mentre svolgono il proprio dovere, non sono soltanto le loro famiglie a essere colpite. È tutta la nostra comunità che perde qualcosa.
E io, tutti noi della Difesa, oggi, sentiamo profondamente questa perdita. Sto andando in Bosnia, con il Capo di Stato Maggiore della Difesa per rendere omaggio ai nostri Caduti, per stare vicino ai nostri militari feriti, per accertarmi personalmente delle loro condizioni e portare loro la vicinanza tangibile e l’affetto di tutta la Difesa e del Paese”. Lo ha scritto su X il ministro della Difesa Guido Crosetto.
“Vorrei poter trovare le parole giuste – ha aggiunto – poter dare una risposta, poter alleviare almeno un po’ il dolore di chi sta vivendo queste ore terribili. So che non sarà possibile. Ma ci sono momenti in cui non servono parole. Serve esserci. Guardare negli occhi le persone, stringere una mano, ascoltare, condividere il dolore ed aiutare, facendo sentire che nessuno sarà lasciato solo.
Oggi anche il Villaggio della Difesa al Circo Massimo però dovrà cambiare significato. Non sarà più un luogo nel quale festeggiare le Forze Armate, ma un luogo nel quale l’Italia potrà fermarsi, ricordare Simone, Claudio, Franco Adriano e Laura e stringersi idealmente alle loro famiglie e ai nostri feriti. E con loro ricordare tutti i servitori dello Stato che negli anni hanno perso la vita o sono stati feriti. La Difesa è una famiglia. E oggi è una famiglia ferita. Ma è anche una famiglia che non dimentica i propri membri e che non abbandona chi soffre. A Simone, Claudio, Franco Adriano e Laura va il mio pensiero più profondo. Ai loro cari il mio abbraccio. Ai nostri feriti, la promessa che saremo loro vicini, come sempre. L’Italia non dimenticherà”.
L'articolo Caduti in Bosnia, Meloni e Crosetto al Villaggio Difesa: “L’Italia non dimenticherà”. Il cordoglio delle istituzioni proviene da Affaritaliani.it.
Un padre acudió a los tribunales para dejar de pagar la pensión de alimentos a su hijo, que tiene reconocido un 48 % de discapacidad. El juzgado rechazó su petición y él recurrió. La sección tercera de la Audiencia Provincial de A Coruña ha desestimado también esa apelación, según publicó La Voz de Galicia el 23 de octubre.
El hombre expuso que él mismo padece una discapacidad y que necesita su prestación por incapacidad para cubrir sus gastos vitales. Así, el procedimiento ponía frente a frente las necesidades económicas del hijo y las del padre. El recurso, en cualquier caso, no ha conseguido extinguir la pensión.
El caso deja una pregunta que afecta a muchas familias: ¿qué ocurre cuando cambian las necesidades de quien recibe la pensión o los recursos de quien la paga? La revisión debe pedirse ante un juez, que examina las circunstancias de cada parte antes de decidir.
La pensión de alimentos cubre más cosas que la comida. El Código Civil incluye, entre otras necesidades, el sustento, la vivienda, la ropa y la asistencia médica. También prevé que la cuantía guarde proporción con los medios de quien paga y las necesidades de quien la recibe.
Eso significa que los cambios económicos o personales pueden llevar a una familia a pedir una revisión judicial. La ley contempla, por ejemplo, que la obligación cese si la situación de quien paga ha empeorado hasta el punto de no poder atenderla sin desatender sus propias necesidades. También permite valorar si quien recibía la pensión ya dispone de medios para mantenerse. La respuesta depende de las circunstancias acreditadas en cada procedimiento.
Otros casos muestran lo diferentes que pueden ser esas circunstancias. En uno de ellos, la Audiencia mantuvo una pensión de 350 euros a un estudiante tras examinar sus ingresos y la relación con su padre. En el caso publicado ahora en Carballo, lo comprobado es la petición de extinción y el rechazo del recurso.
La Audiencia ha confirmado la negativa que ya había recibido el padre en primera instancia. En consecuencia, su solicitud de dejar de pagar no ha prosperado. El padre planteó la necesidad de atender sus propios gastos; el hijo tiene reconocida una discapacidad. La resolución mantiene la obligación de pago tras el recurso.
También conviene recordar que una pensión fijada judicialmente no desaparece porque uno de los progenitores decida dejar de abonarla. Si las circunstancias cambian, debe solicitarse su modificación por la vía correspondiente. En otro litigio sobre la pensión de un hijo universitario, el tribunal revisó precisamente las cuentas del padre antes de mantener la cantidad establecida.
En este caso, el dato decisivo para contar el desenlace es sencillo: el padre pidió que terminara su obligación, recurrió al no obtenerlo y la Audiencia volvió a rechazar su petición. El porcentaje de discapacidad del hijo, por sí solo, no explica todos los motivos de una resolución que requiere leer y valorar las circunstancias de ambos.
© Pexels
© difoosion
Login