Connect with us

News

Businessman Berates Buskers In Lichfield

Published

on

Buskers in Lichfield,Staffordshire, England were approached by a man who wasn’t too keen on their music,in the man’s two minute rant, he lets of a traide of comments and insults in which He accuses the men of not paying their taxes,scrounging of everybody else,being losers and not having a ‘real job’.

 

In a Statement to NewsThisSecond Mr Morehead said ” I genuinely am really sorry about the way I dealt with the situation on Friday afternoon” and that he was “massively ashamed” of his actions. and would like to offer £200 to a charity of their choice to “show that these are not my normal way of dealing with these types of situations”

Mr Morehead said that he had spent 5 hours not being able to talk to candidates or clients and that his team was unable to work with the level of noise caused by the buskers.

He says that the video does “not show the first part of our dialogue as it would show me more level headed complaining about the level off the noise” and asking why they wouldn’t move when the council had asked them to”.

Cllr Doug Pullen, Cabinet Member for Regulatory Services, Housing & Wellbeing in Litchfield, said: “We absolutely support the right to busk within Lichfield City and appreciate the contribution our many buskers make to the thriving city atmosphere.
 
“On Friday 4 May, we received a number of noise complaints about a group of musicians who were busking on Bakers Lane in Lichfield city centre.
 
“Two of our environmental health officers came out to investigate and asked the band members to turn their amplifier down and to move on to another spot within the centre. This is so the music does not affect the same people and businesses for a lengthy period of time. They agreed to do this at the time, but did not move on.
 
“Our officers asked the band members for their names and addresses so we could take action to prevent them from causing a nuisance, but they refused to give us their details. As a result we asked the police for assistance, but the buskers left before they could get there.”

Staffordshire Police told NewsThisSecond they have no record of any incident being reported.

The Buskers seen in the video told NewsThisSecond that they have since spoken to Mr Morehead and accepted his public apology. Whilst they appreciate the support from the public they say “we do not condone threats of violence or abuse directed at Matt and his Family”. They also said that a point they tried to make by posting the video is that “We’re all human and capable of irrational behaviour from time to time”.

Mr Morehead’s donation will be spent between HenHouse performing arts group in Lichfield and the Help for heroes campaign.

The ‘Keep Streets Live Campaign’ whose aim is to build positive relationships between street artists and performers and the relevant local authorities in the places they perform issued a statement to NewsThisSecond that read;

“This incident shows the need for clear lines of communication between Buskers, businesses and other street users, such as that successfully promoted by Keep Streets Live in York, Birmingham and other cities. We have spoken the the Buskers involved and welcome the fact that the issue has now been resolved in a positive manner.”

Full Statement From Matt Morehead

(The statement was originally issued as an apology to the buskers)

I had to take some time out yesterday to reflect on what had happened. I genuinely am really sorry about the way I dealt with the situation on Friday afternoon. when I initially spoke to you it was more based up the fact we had spent 5 hours not being able to talk to candidates, clients or even allow my team to work.

I was aware that the council had asked you to move twice to which you refused and they had asked the police to move you on. I am massively ashamed of my actions.

I had no right to lose my temper they way I did with you and your band and for this I truly apologise my actions were unforgivable, unfortunately the video does not show the first part of our dialogue as it would show me more level headed complaining about the level off the noise and asking why you wouldn’t move when the council had asked you to move.

The events of Friday have had huge impact this weekend with death threats to myself and family and I accept and understand this is because of my own actions.

I am truly sorry for what I did and deeply regret my actions. I know there is nothing that I can do to take it back, but to show how remorseful I am please accept my apologies I would like to offer £200 to your chosen charity to show that these are not my normal way of dealing with these types of situations.

Once again I’m truly sorry. If you wish to make this apology public it’s up to you but I do really regret my actions friday.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Abortion

US Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Clinic Protest Zone Limits In Chicago, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Published

on

By

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday left in place policies in Chicago and Pennsylvania’s capital Harrisburg that place limits on anti-abortion activists gathered outside abortion clinics.

The justices declined to hear two appeals by anti-abortion groups and individual activists of lower court rulings upholding the cities’ ordinances.

The Chicago policy bars activists from coming within eight feet (2.4 meters) of someone within 50 feet (15 meters) of any healthcare facility without their consent if they intend to protest, offer counseling or hand out leaflets. The Harrisburg measure bars people from congregating or demonstrating within 20 feet (6 meters) of a healthcare facility’s entrance or exit.

Both cases pitted the free speech rights of anti-abortion protesters against public safety concerns raised by women’s healthcare providers regarding demonstrations outside clinics. There is a history of violent acts committed against abortion providers.

At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the ordinances violate free speech rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year upheld the Chicago ordinance, which was introduced in 2009. The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Harrisburg in 2019. That measure was enacted in response to disruptions by protesters outside two abortion clinics in the city.

The cases did not directly implicate abortion rights. In a major ruling on Monday, the struck down a Louisiana law placing restrictions on doctors that perform abortions.

Also on Thursday, the court directed a lower court to reconsider the legality of two Indiana abortion restrictions – one that would require women to undergo an ultrasound procedure at least 18 hours before terminating a pregnancy and another that would expand parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion. The lower court had struck down both measures.

Abortion remains a divisive issue in the United States. The Supreme Court in its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalized abortion nationwide, finding that women have a constitutional right to the procedure. In recent years, numerous Republican-governed states have sought to impose a series of restrictions on abortion.

Continue Reading

Breaking News

Federal Judge Reverses Trump Asylum Policy Due To Government Failing To Abide By Administrative Procedure Act

Published

on

By

(Law & Crime) — A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump on Tuesday evening overturned the Trump Administration’s second and most restrictive asylum policy, all because the government failed to abide by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the judge reasoned.

In a 52-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly of Washington, D.C. held that in enacting the rule, which required immigrants to seek asylum in any country they passed through before they could claim asylum in the U.S., the Trump administration “unlawfully dispensed” with mandatory procedural requirements allowing the public to weigh in on proposed rule changes.

Kelly, who was appointed to the court in 2017, rejected the Trump administration’s assertion that the asylum rule fell within exceptions to the APA permitting the government to disregard the notice-and-comment requirement if there’s “good cause” such commentary is unnecessary or if the rule involves a military or foreign affairs function.

“[The court] also holds that Defendants unlawfully promulgated the rule without complying with the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements, because neither the ‘good cause’ nor the ‘foreign affairs function’ exceptions are satisfied on the record here,” Kelly wrote. “Despite their potentially broad sweep, the D.C. Circuit has instructed that these exceptions must be ‘narrowly construed’ and ‘reluctantly countenanced.’ The Circuit has also emphasized that the broader a rule’s reach, ‘the greater the necessity for public comment.’ With these baseline principles in mind, the Court considers whether either the good cause or foreign affairs function exception applies here. Neither does.”

According to Kelly, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally allows any person physically in the U.S. seeking refuge to apply for asylum — with some exceptions for immigrants who have committed certain crimes or who had previously been “firmly resettled” prior to arriving in the U.S.

“The Court reiterates that there are many circumstances in which courts appropriately defer to the national security judgments of the Executive. But determining the scope of an APA exception is not one of them,” Kelly wrote. “As noted above, if engaging in notice-and-comment rulemaking before implementing the rule would have harmed ongoing international negotiations, Defendants could have argued that these effects gave them good cause to forgo these procedures. And they could have provided an adequate factual record to support those predictive judgments to which the Court could defer. But they did not do so.”

Claudia Cubas, the Litigation Director at CAIR Coalition, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, praised the decision as removing an “unjust barrier to protection” for those in need.

“By striking down this rule, Judge Kelly reaffirmed two fundamental principles. The protection of asylum seekers fleeing for safety is intertwined with our national values and that the United States is a country where the rule of law cannot be tossed aside for political whims,” Cubas said.

Read the full opinion below:

Asylum Ban Decision by Law&Crime on Scribd

Continue Reading

Breaking News

US Supreme Court Rules Public Funds Allowed For Religious Schools In State Tax Credit Program

Published

on

By

USA Today writes:

The Supreme Court delivered a major victory Tuesday to parents seeking state aid for their children’s religious school education. The court’s conservative majority ruled that states offering scholarships to students in private schools cannot exclude religious schools from such programs.

The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who has joined the liberal justices in three other major rulings this month. It was a decision long sought by proponents of school choice and vehemently opposed by teachers’ unions, who fear it could drain needed tax dollars from struggling public schools.

Read the US Supreme Court ruling here or below.

Continue Reading

Popular

Copyright © 2018 News This Second