//= do_shortcode('[in-content-square]')?> Janet Finch-Saunders MS. Photo Welsh Conservatives

Welsh Tories have hit out at new legislation which provides six months notice for no-fault evictions, saying overregulation is driving landlords out of the private sector.

Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 comes into force on December 1, 2022 and will apply to councils, housing associations, supported housing and private accommodation and has major implications, including giving greater security to tenants and placing new responsibilities on landlords.

People with rolling tenancies will need to be given six months notice for no-fault evictions rather than the current period of two months under last-minute changes to the Act.

Welsh Conservative Shadow Minister for Housing, Janet Finch-Saunders MS said: landlords will be forced to give six months notice for no-fault evictions under last minute plans to change a housing law.

Once again, we see Labour ministers moving the goalposts for landlords. Labour ministers in Cardiff Bay have taken too much time to address this legislation and have created chaos in the private housing sector.

Concerningly, this six-month rule will now apply from 2023 to existing tenancies. This overregulation is driving landlords out of the private sector and Labour wont be satisfied until there are none left in Wales.

Labour ministers need to focus on the true cause of the housing crisis their failure to build enough houses in Wales.

Ban no-fault evictions

The Welsh Liberal Democrats have stated that the Renting Homes Act doesnt go far enough to protect tenants and have called for an inquiry as to why the Act has taken six years to come into effect.

The Welsh Liberal Democrats however have argued that no-fault evictions should be banned in their entirety as has been done in both Scotland and England and that Labour is letting Wales fall behind the rest of the UK when it comes to protections for tenants.

The Renting Homes Act was originally introduced in 2016 but has suffered a series of delays and significant changes which some opposition parties, including the Liberal Democrats see as a watering down of previous commitments.

Welsh Liberal Democrat Leader Jane Dodds MS said: It is utterly shameful that action on no-fault evictions is set to be delayed to June next year, six months after the already extremely delayed Renting Homes Act finally comes into force.

Worse than just a delay we are seeing that the Act will leave us significantly behind Scotland and England when it comes to banning no-fault evictions in their entirety.

This Act has been a disaster from start to end, it should not take the Senedd over six years to introduce legislation. We now need an inquiry into what went wrong with the introduction of thisactto ensure it doesnt happen again and that the taxpayers are getting value for their money when it comes to introducing new legislation.

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

Read the rest here:

Labour 'forcing landlords out of Wales,' claim Tories - Nation.Cymru

NORMAL In the first of two official debates in the governors race this month, Gov. JB Pritzker on Thursday night finally faced the candidate whose victory in the Republican primary election this summer was helped along by $30 million in spending by the billionaire Democrat whom hes also spent months labeling too extreme for Illinois.

State Sen. Darren Bailey (R-Xenia) used the opportunity to call Pritzker dangerous and an arrogant liar to the governors face. Pritzker accused Bailey of telling more lies as the Republican repeated his well-worn criticisms of Democrats sweeping criminal justice law passed last year, which is centered on abolishing cash bail in Illinois.

Despite consistent polls showing Illinois voters ranking crime below other issues like the economy and reproductive rights, Bailey and other Republicans running for state office have made their opposition to the SAFE-T Act the centerpiece of their campaigns, with the GOP nominee repeatedly claiming Illinois will experience The Purge when the law is fully implemented on Jan. 1.

While some provisions of the law have already gone into effect including tightening standards for police use-of-force and expands the scenarios in which a law enforcement or corrections officer can be decertified, and thus deemed ineligible for hire in Illinois the states elimination of cash bail doesnt begin until 2023. Instead of allowing arrestees to post bond in order to get released from jail, the new system instructs judges to consider whether to detain alleged criminals based on the severity of their offense, the risk of an arrestee not appearing for court and the danger he or she poses to an individual or community if they were to be released. Thats not unlike the federal court system, which eliminated cash bail in the 1980s.

But in the nearly two years since Democrats pushed the law through the legislature in the waning hours of the General Assemblys Lame Duck session in January 2021, Republicans have amped up their criticism of the SAFE-T Act, claiming it will have the opposite of its intended effect, in part due to the phrasing within the 700-page law. While Democrats have recently become more public in their acknowledgement of the need for clarification within the law, theyre reticent to identify specific changes theyd make before January.

Well, I think that there are clarifications, Pritzker said in response to a debate question about what hed alter in the law.

But he stopped short of answering the question, instead turning his ire on the GOP.

As you know, the Republicans have put out a lot of disinformation a whole list of things that they say are non-detainable offenses. There's no such thing under the SAFE-T Act as non-detainable offenses. And again, the goal of [the law] is to keep murderers, rapists, domestic abusers and violent criminals in jail, and a poor young mother who shoplifts diapers and formula would be kept in for months if she doesnt have the $500 for bail.

Bailey claimed the elimination of cashless bail will be tantamount to revolving doors to every jail in the state of Illinois.

This SAFE-T Act must be repealed because it will let violent criminals and murderers out of jail before trial, Bailey said. Now, Governor Pritzker could have proposed a bail reform for nonviolent criminals. I would have supported that. But he didntAnd friends, we're going to have the exact same problem across the state that Chicago is experiencing after Jan. 1.

In reliably blue Illinois, Democrats have tried to wedge Republicans into a corner on the issue of abortion access, using the U.S. Supreme Courts June repeal of Roe v. Wade to energize both their base and independent voters activated by reproductive rights. GOP candidates, especially in areas where abortion access is a key political driver, have largely tried to avoid the subject another factor in centering campaign messaging around crime and the SAFE-T Act.

But Bailey has not been shy about his position on abortion as a much more conservative Republican than the brand of GOP politicians whove traditionally enjoyed political success in Illinois. Thursday nights debate featured clips of both candidates played in surround sound for the approximately 1,200 audience members in ISUs Braden Auditorium. One of those clips featured then-legislative candidate Bailey in a 2017 Facebook live video unearthed this summer, in which the Republican compared abortion to the Holocaust.

Bailey has previously accused Democrats and the media of exaggerating his statement that the attempted extermination of the Jews of WWII doesnt even compare on a shadow of the life that has been lost with abortion since its legalization. But he also defended his statement in August, claiming that Jewish leaders told him he was right. Asked on Thursday to identify those leaders, Bailey refused.

He also acknowledged the limited power he would have as governor to enact policies severely limiting abortions, especially with a Democratically led legislature.

Illinois has the most permissive abortion laws in the nation, Bailey said. Nothings going to change when Im governor. I couldnt change them.

Pritzker seized the opportunity to label Bailey as an extremist on abortion, saying the Republican wants to take away womens reproductive rights even in the case of rape and incest.

Youre so divisive, Bailey scolded.

Providing more legal protections to out-of-state women who seek abortions in Illinois, as well as healthcare providers who cross state lines to perform abortions was supposed to be one area the General Assembly addressed in a special session this summer, but momentum for that session never came to fruition.

Another policy area that Pritzker and Democratic lawmakers said theyd address in that special session was the states gun laws after a mass shooting at the Highland Park Independence Day Parade left seven dead and three dozen wounded. The governor and Bailey sparred over the need to enact more restrictive gun laws, with Bailey claiming the number of shootings in Illinois proved the states existing laws arent working.

A majority of Illinoisans and Americans favor banning assault-style weapons, as Congress did for a 10-year period between 1994 and 2004. Pritzker re-upped his call for that ban on Thursday night, but when asked why Democrats didnt take up the issue this summer, the governor punted responsibility to the legislature. Bailey, too, demurred to the General Assembly on that question, pivoting instead to talking about mental health, and at one point blaming the influx of migrants at the nations southern border.

The debate moved through a series of rapid-fire questions on a variety of topics, but Bailey tried to find moments to attack Pritzker on Illinois high property taxes and the states reputation as a poorly run government with an unattractive business climate. The governor touted the six credit upgrades Illinois has received from New York bond houses since last year, though the state still has the worst credit rating in the nation.

Pritzker claimed that if Democrats keep improving Illinois previously dismal financial picture, eventually the state could see lower taxes, but declined to answer how many years he thought that might take in a post-debate media availability.

Bailey, on the other hand, claimed he could save the state billions of dollars by implementing zero-based budgeting, wherein continuing appropriations are nixed and each line item in Illinois now $40-billion budget would have to be justified. But the Republican declined to elaborate on what he thought hed turn up in wasteful spending.

After the hour-long debate, Pritzker took a handful of questions from reporters who tried to pin him down on more specifics left unanswered in the back-and-forth between him and Bailey.

Bailey, however, did not choose to meet the press, instead sending a campaign staffer who briefly addressed reporters left waiting in the so-called spin room.

It is clear the senator won the debate tonight, Bailey spokesman Joe DeBose said before saying his boss wouldnt be answering questions.

Im just here to tell you that we won and winners dont need spin, he said, donning a black cowboy hat as he left the room.

Excerpt from:

Pritzker, Bailey square off in first of two debates, each accusing the other of lying - Northern Public Radio (WNIJ)

INLAND EMPIRE, CA Grab your calendars, and get ready for fall festivities!

Halloween and autumn events abound throughout the Inland Empire. Peruse Patch's annual guide to find haunted houses, Dia de los Muertos extravaganzas, trick-or-treating, costume parties, corn mazes, pumpkin patches and more near you.

Enjoy the season and Happy Halloween from Patch!

OCT. 29: Halloween Spooktacular Trunk-Or-Treat: Community Center. "Come by and fill your bags with treats! "

----------

OCT. 15: Monster Mash Halloween Party & Costume Contest. Featuring free games, candy, reptile exhibit, bouncers, rock climbing & costume contest.

OCT. 31: Halloween Trunk-Or-Treat: Sports Park. Don't forget your costumes!

----------

OCT. 30: Halloween Spooktacular & Trick-or-Treating. Costume contest, too!

------------

OCT. 1-31: 'Pumpkin Factory' Pumpkin Patch, Rides & Petting Zoo. With amusement rides for little ones.

OCT. 7-30: Coffin Creek Haunted Village. "Five haunted attractions & Dark Shadow Market Place at one terrifying location."

-----------

OCT. 22: A Very Bizzy Halloween Family Fest & Costume Ball: Bizzyland Gardens. Family-friendly by day & for 21+ by night.-----------

OCT. 1-30: 'Dimensions of Insanity: Torture' - Immersive Haunt Experience. "A nightmarish experience you wish were just a dream."

------------

OCT. 28-30: Halloween 'Boo At The Bowl': Ramona Bowl Amphitheatre. Get pre-sale or at-the-door tickets for this annual event.

-----------

OCT. 29: Bat Walk Night Adventure in La Quinta Cove. "The best superhero bat costume gets a prize!"-----------

OCT. 15: Bracken Fern Manor & Tudor House Lockdown: Paranormal Investigation. For the super brave, there's a blindfolded, solitary challenge, too.

--------

SEPT. 24-OCT. 31: ABC Pumpkin Patch - Bounce House, Rides & Giant Slide. Choose a pumpkin & stay for the fun.

SEPT. 30-OCT. 30: 'Undead Circus' Haunted Maze & Carnival, Launch Pointe. The carnival portion is family-friendly with games, pumpkins & bounce houses.

OCT.: Field Of Screams The Haunted Stadium: Canceled for 2022.

OCT. 15: Mariachi Fest & Fireworks: Diamond Stadium. Award-wining performances followed by fireworks finale.

OCT. 28: Halloween Costume Party. With two DJs, food & costume contest. 18+ to party, & 21+ to drink.

OCT. 28-30: Storm Halloween Fest, Carnival Rides & Marketplace. Midway features Ferris wheel, wave slide, kiddie rides & more.

OCT. 29: Dia De Los Muertos Celebration: Main Street. Featuring music & dance, artists, vendors, crafts for kids, food & altars.

----------

OCT. 5, 12, 19, 26 & 31: 'Hitchcocktober' Halloween Movie Fest: Reading Cinemas Cal Oaks. It's the perfect season to enjoy films of Alfred Hitchcock, the master of suspense.

OCT. 29: Trunk-Or-Treat & 'Ghostbusters' Movie. Free for all at Town Square Park.----------

SEPT. 23-OCT. 29: 'Legend Of Sleepy Hollow': Riley's Farm Theatre Co. Book soon if interested. This beloved, annual event sells fast.------------

SEPT. 30 - OCT. 31: Miss Hazel's Parkwil Manor Haunted House: Shops At Palm Desert. The "deadicated" cast takes scary seriously. At former Westfield Palm Desert.

OCT. 29: The Amazing World of Bats. RSVP as space is limited.

OCT. 29-30: Howl-O-Ween & Trick-or-Treating: Living Desert Zoo. With animal fun & magician, too.

OCT. 30: 'Masquerade' Golf Cart Parade & Halloween Fun. NFL legend & recent Pro Football Hall of Fame Inductee, Tom Flores, is Grand Marshal, and this years theme is "Masquerade."-----------

OCT. 28, 29 & 31: 'BITE' Vampire Circus Dining Adventure: PS Underground. With "free-flowing blood-curdling cocktails, beer, wine, hand-passed appetizers & diabolical four-course dinner."OCT. 30: Boys & Girls Club 'Be A Hero For Kids Halloween Bash': Hilton Palm Springs. All proceeds support the organization.

----------

OCT. 29: 'The Bride Of Pinacate' Haunted Train Ride: SoCal Railway Museum. A young, widowed bride has haunted the tracks for 135 years. All aboard to discover her secrets!

---------

SEPT. 16-OCT. 31: Live Oak Canyon Pumpkin Patch, Corn Maze & Petting Zoo. Extravaganza includes hay rides, weekend entertainment, rope courses, zip line, duck races & more.

OCT. 22: 'Hollywood Halloween' Trick-Or-Treat Event: Citrus Plaza. With costume parade, petting zoo, face painting & Famous Dave's BBQ lunch.

--------

SEPT. 23-OCT. 30: 'Castle Dark' Halloween Haunts: Castle Park. Fright-filled mazes are what happens when your neighborhood mini-golf, amusement park lets ghouls visit on weekends.

SEPT. 24-OCT. 30: Dia De Los Muertos & Trick-Or-Treating: Castle Park. Weekend fun with Mexican & Latin American traditions, decorations, music, marionettes and treats.

OCT. 21-22: 'CarnEVIL' - California Riverside Ballet Ghost Walk & Festival. Experience ends at kids carnival, food & vendor court & Tavern of Terror beer garden.-----------

NOV. 5: Annual 'Autumn Elegance' Wine & Food Fundraiser: Soboba Casino. Annual fall event to benefit Hemet-San Jacinto Exchange Club & Friends of Valley-Wide Foundation.-----------

SEPT. 24-OCT. 31: Peltzer Pumpkin Patch & Petting Farm. A community tradition in its 26th season!

SEPT. 30-OCT. 31: 'Mansion Of Lost Souls' Halloween Haunt: Promenade Mall. "We cannot promise that you all will make it through, but we will pray for your survival.:

OCT.: 'Temecula Terror' Halloween Haunt. Canceled for 2022.

OCT. 1-30: Big Horse Corn Maze. Canceled.

OCT. 8: Trick Or Treat at the Aloha Market. Enjoy Hawaiian BBQ, poke & iced coffee, too.

OCT. 8: Autumn Sunset Supper. Supports Sale Ranch Animal Sanctuary.

OCT. 8-30: 'Headless Horseman' Haunted Horse-Drawn Wagon Ride. With "moderate" scare level, so geared to families.

OCT. 20: Adults Harry Potter Trivia Night. For ages 18+ & registration required.

OCT. 24: Teen Movie Night. Get in the spirit with Halloween movie & candy!

OCT. 28: Annual Halloween Carnival: Town Square & Sam Hicks Park. Simultaneous events at two parks.

OCT. 28-29: CarnEvil Ball: Europa Village Wineries & Resort. A "spirited" good time with costume contest.

OCT. 29: Halloween Home Bike Tour. Go for a group spin & check out all the spooktacular decorations.

OCT. 29: Halloween Party at Batch Mead. Tickets on sale.

OCT. 29: HalloWine Party & Costume Contest: Peltzer Winery. Live music, food & costume contest.

NOV. 2: Da de los Muertos D.I.Y. Crafternoon. For ages 3-12. Sign up in advance, as in-person registration only.------------

OCT. 15: Rooted In Nature Craft Brew Festival: Marna O'Brien Park. Annual fall event with beer garden, live music, wildlife park & food trucks.

OCT. 22: Fall Family Fun Fair. With live music, puppeteer, free pony rides, bounce houses, rock- climbing wall, food trucks & more.

OCT. 29: Halloween Trunk-Or-Treat: Marna OBrien Park. "A family fun and safe Halloween event."

See the original post here:

Where To Find Pumpkin Patches, Halloween Fun Near Banning, Beaumont - Patch

Nobody can say for sure, but theres an expectation among aides on Capitol Hill that if Democrats lose control of the Houseas is the most likely scenario, per one Democratic aideNancy Pelosi will step down. There are the all-important caveats (Anyone who tells you that they know what Speaker Pelosi is going to dounless it is Speaker Pelosiis lying to you, another aide tells me), but as the November midterms inch closer, and the prospect of being in the minority grows, the jockeying to succeed one of the most storied Democratic leadership teams has begun in full force.

The drama isnt only around Pelosis next steps, however. Between the 82-year-old Speaker, House majority leader Steny Hoyer, 83, and House majority whip Jim Clyburn, 82Pelosis number two and threeDemocrats top leadership team combined has more than a century of experience in the House. Democratic lawmakers arent just eyeing who would replace their top leader; theres an appetite for a completely new generation to lead the party that could rankle some of Democrats most senior members.

It is always good to have a deep bench of people who are going to continue to lead the party in a way that resonates with people, Washington congresswoman Pramila Jayapal said. I think that there is a real sense that there is a real opportunity for some generational change in leadership, whether or not we hold the House. I think what we dont know is what that looks like, and who in the current leadership feels that way or doesnt feel that way.

In 2018, Pelosi agreed to a term limit for her speakership. But her office has routinely and repeatedly dismissed questions about her plans or possible succession; Pelosis office has said the Speaker is too focused on the midterms to be concerned about her title. The Speaker is not on a shift. Shes on a mission, Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill told Vanity Fair. Notably, Clyburn and Hoyer havent publicly stated their plans. Hoyer is proud to have the support of his colleagues and the American people and looks forward to building on this strong record by strengthening our majority and furthering efforts to ensure workers and families have the tools they need to Make It in America, Margaret Mulkerrin, Hoyers communications director, said when contacted for this article. (Clyburns office did not respond to a request for comment). If Hoyer or Clyburn make a play for the top job, or even if they make a bid to stay in their current roles, things could get messy quickly. For now, the mystery has led to a monthslong quiet race among some of the partys budding starsbased entirely on hypotheticals.

Conversations with congressional aides and lawmakers have painted the following picture of this shadow contest. New York congressman Hakeem Jeffries, currently the House Democratic Caucus chair, emerged as an early front-runner to take over for Pelosi. Jeffriess office declined to comment, but termed-out of his current position as caucus chair, Jeffries is fully expected to run for a higher rung in leadership. California congressman Adam Schiff is also seen as in the mix. While he hasnt announced any plans to make a bid for Speaker, he has had conversations with other members about the possibility. Schiffs prolific fundraising capabilitieshe touts a staggering nearly $20 million in his war chestwhich, as Puck recently laid out, could serve as an argument in his favor for a more prominent role within the caucus. Asked about the speakership, Schiff spokesperson Cate Hurley said, Chairman Schiff is doing everything possible to support vulnerable Democratic colleagues and promising challengers so that we can retain the House Democratic majority in November. That is where his time and energy are focused.

Any replacement would face the arduous task of propping up Democrats big tent. Despite her long tenure, Pelosis grip on the Democratic caucus has not gone unchallenged since she first became the leader in 2003. Particularly in recent leadership races, she has had to cut deals and make promises with factions of her party to hang on to the helm (like her pledge to step aside by the end of 2022). The partys historic premium on seniority has long been a source of tension; there is a sense among some members that they will never have a shot at leadership positions. Some feel the partys old guard is standing in the way of progress and change. These gripes again bubbled to the surface this month after House leadership unveiled a bill aimed at banning lawmakers from owning stocks that was disparaged by ethics experts. Virginia congresswoman Abigail Spanberger said it was designed to fail. This moment marks a failure of House leadershipand its yet another example of why I believe that the Democratic Party needs new leaders in the halls of Capitol Hill, as I have long made known, Spanberger said in a statement.

Im waiting and watching, Pennsylvania congresswoman Madeleine Dean said when asked about a changing of the guard within the party. Im certain there will be, at some point, a lot of change. You see already in the pipeline tremendous talent from folks who are leading us now at different levels, she said, in reference to the Democrats bench and the possibility of a new generation of leadership at the table.

Read the original here:

Is the End of the Nancy Pelosi Era Near? The Jockeying to Succeed Her Is in Full Force - Vanity Fair

Mark Zuckerberg said Facebook has no "shadow banning" policy, but admitted that mistakes do happen.

In a three-hour interview on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, the Meta CEO talked about topics from the metaverseto his views onthe credibility of the FBI, calling it a "legitimate institution."

Rogan then asked Zuckerberg to explain whether "shadow banning" occurred on social media platforms such as Facebook. He replied: "There's no policy that is 'shadow banning', so I think it's sort of a slang term. But that maybe refers to some of the demotions [of posts] that we're talking about."

Zuckerberg was referring to posts that are marked as false, misinformative, or fall into harmful content categories. They include foreign nations interfering in politics, terrorism, child pornography, and blatant intellectual property violation.

If a post is "marked as false by a fact-checker, it will get somewhat less shown," Zuckerberg said. "But if there's some history within a page, then there can be some kind of broader policy that applies."

He continued: "Unfortunately, there are a lot of mistake, and part of the issue is that there's 3.5 billion people using these services, and if we make a mistake 0.1% of the time, there's still million of mistakes ... and that sucks."

He also blamed "some bug in the system, or some system didn't work like it was supposed to," for posts that get banned. "It is a real issue, but it isn't an ideological issue."

Zuckerberg said some posts failed to reach a wide audience simply because they are not very good.

"Empowering people is very deep in the ethos of the company," he said. "Whenever we mess that up which we do, frequently we pay the price for it and people don't like those things that we do and we have to run them back."

Zuckerberg, who is worth $58. billion according to Forbes, created Facebook while studying at Harvard University in 2004 to help other students match names and photos of classmates.

The company listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 2012 and was last year renamed Meta. It also owns Instagram and WhatsApp.

Read this article:

Zuckerberg Says No 'Shadow Banning' on Facebook but Admits 'Mistakes'

Cheating is one of the biggest issues in Call of Duty: Warzone. The game is notorious for the number of cheaters who sneak through the cracks of its anti-cheat system and exploit the games various weaknesses to dominate games unfairly. To help combat this, the Warzone team uses a few different methods, including the practice of shadow banning suspected cheaters.

Getting shadow banned isnt quite the same as being banned. Players who are shadow banned can still open the game and play, seemingly like normal. What shadow banning does, however, is take accounts that are cheating and group them into a separate player pool, away from the normal servers of players who arent suspected of cheating. The logic is simple: make the cheaters play against other cheaters, instead of ruining the game for players who are legitimate. The game does not tell you if youre shadow banned to keep cheaters playing the shadow ban version of the game for as long as possible.

Unfortunately, this system isnt perfect. There have been plenty of cases of players who werent cheating but still managed to get shadow banned. If you think you mightve been shadow banned, here are the signs to look for to confirm it and how to get rid of the shadow ban.

The first and most obvious way to tell if youre shadow banned is if you notice a sizable uptick in cheaters in your lobbies. This can sometimes be a bit difficult to tell, however. Sometimes, it just seems like everyone in the lobby is better than you, and theres nothing you can do about it. Generally speaking, accounts of players that arent already good at Warzone usually wont get shadow banned, meaning that cheaters will be most noticeable if you generally got good results while playing Warzone and then suddenly seem to hit a wall for no reason in gun fights.

Of course, not all cheats are created equal. If your killcam constantly looks like your opponents have inhuman aim, you might be playing in shadow ban lobbies.

On the other hand, there are cheaters who dont get shadow banned and still manage to run around in regular player lobbies. In this case, another good way to tell if your account has been shadow banned is if your queue times suddenly get considerably longer. Since the shadow ban pool of players is so much smaller than the regular pool of players, it takes longer for lobbies to bring in enough players for games.

One final way to tell if youre shadow banned in Warzone is if you suddenly start seeing your game struggle with ping. If youre used to a certain level of ping and then your game seems to consistently go over 300 ping for no reason related to your internet connection, its another clue that your account might be shadow banned.

All of these signs might indicate a shadow banned account, but if you seem to notice more than one of these clues, or all three, the odds that your account has been shadow banned increase considerably.

If you think that youve been mistakenly shadow banned, there are a couple of ways you can go about trying to lift the ban from your account. The first way is the easiest: wait a while. If youve been banned on accident, shadow bans usually lift in a week or two. After that time period, your game should return to normal and you can play in regular Warzone lobbies again.

If thats too long to wait, players can also appeal the ban via the Activision Ban Appeal page. This will require you to log into your Activision account (which you can do with your information from the platform on which you play Warzone), and then plead your case to Activision. If you were cheating, on the other hand, trying to submit an unban request in this way is extremely unlikely to help your case.

It may be that you submit an unban request and it turns out that your account wasnt shadow banned at all. And while that might be a little hit to your ego, theres no harm in still trying to see if you can lift a shadow ban if you think one has been mistakenly placed on your account.

Visit link:

Warzone shadow banned, explained - Dot Esports

More green madness from Americas worst and most radical state.

California Gov. Newsom signs executive order to increase electricity supply as state braces for major heatwave

By Fox News, August 31, 2022

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday signed an executive order that will allow the state to ramp upelectricity supplyas its power grid braces for stress during a weeklong heatwave.

Speaking at a press conference Wednesday afternoon, Newsom said the executive order would grant California more flexibility across the spectrum in terms of procuring supply toprepare for the heatwave.

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report choose the option that suits you best.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here its free and its essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival.Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Follow this link:

Democrat California Tells Drivers to Stop Charging Cars, Right After ...

Labour would ban imports of foie gras and hunting trophies very early after winning power, Shadow Environment Secretary Jim McMahon has said.

Animal welfare campaigners were outraged earlier this month when Liz Truss junked a Conservative commitment to outlaw the controversial pt.

Nature and farming groups are also dismayed that the new administration has paused post-Brexit subsidies that incentivised agriculture without saying what will replace them.

Speaking to i at the Labour Party conference in Liverpool, Mr McMahon could hardly contain his glee at the furious backlash to a threatened rolling-back of environmental protections. He says the Tories are taking their rural heartlands for granted and will suffer the electoral consequences.

But he acknowledged that he will come under immediate pressure to make good on a host of long-standing promises cherished by Labour supporters to improve animal welfare, of which import bans on foie gras and hunting trophies are the most high-profile.

i revealed last year that Jacob Rees-Mogg, now the Business Secretary, was leading efforts to shelve the proposed ban on foie gras and last week it emerged that it had been scrapped entirely.

To produce foie gras which translates as fatty liver male ducks and geese are force fed grain and fat three or four times a day in a process known as gavage. The forced feeding causes the birds livers to swell to up to 10 times their normal size.

Asked when a Labour government would bring in the bans, Mr McMahon said: There will be a lot to do in that first Queens Speech but there will be an expectation on Labour to set our stall on animal welfare very early that I am working hard to achieve.

He added that he was exploring whether the bans could be implemented without passing new laws to free up Commons time for other high-priority legislation, saying: Its about the art of the possible.

Mr McMahon said the bans are the easier stuff and added: The question for us and the current Government is how do you marry higher animal welfare standards with new international trade deals.

Ms Truss, when she was International Trade Secretary, won a Cabinet battle to force through a new trade deal with Australia despite worries it exposed British farmers to competition from producers with lower standards. Mr McMahon said the party was considering banning any future such deals and would double down on efforts to make the UK a world leader in ethical and green food.

He said he was astonished that the new Environment Secretary, Ranil Jayawardena, paused plans for post-Brexit farm subsidies, the Environment Land Management Scheme, without saying what comes next leaving the National Farmers Union and green groups united in fury.

I know Ranil reasonably well, Mr McMahon said. Im staggered that hes been missing in action. He should have been on the phone to the big groups like the NFU and Wildlife Trust. Its just a matter of respect. Even if the intention isnt to throw it all out but to pause, reflect and rebuild theres going to be a breakdown in trust.

The former Oldham council leader admitted his current job was not necessarily an obvious fit: The only greenery I saw as a kid were the weeds growing through the cracks in the pavement.

Unsurprisingly for a politician he showered praise on farmers and fishermen as grafters who are the best of British but also said he wants to make townies care more about the county by bringing it into urban areas.

Of course I am going to fight for the shires and coastal communities who have some of the most beautiful parts of the country on their doorstep, Mr McMahon said. But you cant just pitch up in somewhere like Oldham and say, Its your responsibility to tackle the climate change emergency, when whats their own environment like? Its grey and its depressing and theres no access to safe green spaces. Theres a huge opportunity there for Labour to fill in the gap.

See the original post here:

Labour will ban foie gras and hunting trophies imports if it takes power - iNews

The NBA announced the findings of its independent investigation into allegations that Phoenix Suns governor Robert Sarver created a racist and sexist atmosphere inside the Suns and Mercury organizations. The allegations became public in an expos by ESPN last year. As a result of the leagues findings, Sarver will be fined $10 million and suspended from his role as team governor for a year. This feckless and toothless punishment by the NBA reveals where the true power resides.

In 2014 in his first year as commissioner Adam Silver took the unprecedented step of banning then Los Angeles Clippers governor Donald Sterling for life. Private recordings of Sterling making racist comments were made public. This was hailed as a bold move by the new commissioner and it furthered the myth of the NBA as a progressive league unafraid to challenge its owners.

Of course Sterling was a known racist for decades by many in and around the NBA and found himself in court fighting allegations of racial discrimination towards minority tenants in his Los Angeles apartment complexes.

The only reason he was banned from the NBA is because those recordings became public and the league could no longer pretend it didnt know.

In 2014 when talk of Sterling being banned picked up steam, outspoken Dallas Mavericks governor Mark Cuban spoke out against the banning of Sterling, calling it a slippery slope.

Cuban was no ally of Sterlings, as he referred to his actions as abhorrent. But he was concerned about the precedent being set, and more broadly what this would mean for other governors.

In order for the commissioner to remove a governor from his position, he needs three-fourths of the governors to vote yes. Given what was said and the optics, the league is majority Black and, remember, players were planning to boycott playoff games finding 23 owners to vote yes was easy for Silver.

Apparently, in this instance with Sarver not so much. What Sarver did is no less abhorrent and egregious than Sterling.

The NBAs investigation revealed that on at least five separate occasions Sarver used the N-word. At least five, which means there were many more times. He made sexist comments towards women he employed, and revealed his genitalia to employees in the workplace.

But interestingly enough, the 43-page report detailing investigation also said:

Say what now?

Your detailed investigation all but confirms the scathing ESPN report but Sarvers not a racist or a sexist?

Sure thing.

Like Sterling, Sarver and his exploits have been rumored and whispered about around the NBA for years. How do you think something like the ESPN story gets started?

Sarver has a penchant for lewdness and crassness at best, and at worst behavior far more abhorrent.

In 2021 at a luau-themed roast and memorial service for his deceased business partner Richard (Dick) Heckmann, Sarver left many of the guests uncomfortable with the sexual tales of his good buddy Dick.

Sarvers net worth is approximately $800 million. A $10 million fine is chump change, and his one-year suspension basically means he cant be seen in public around the team. His bidding will still be done through a proxy, because he is the governor.

The 30 governors of the NBA franchises are where the true power in the league resides. Silver works for them, despite the relationship he has with the players and the public appearance that he can hold the governors collective feet to the fire.

If the governors decided they wanted Sarver out, he wouldve already been voted out. But there is a saying about birds of a feather. Given that the other governors are also mostly wealthy white men, do you think Sarver is the only governor whose engaged in less than ideal behavior, to put it mildly?

Probably not. So there is no incentive for them to start what would essentially be voting against their own interests.

A fine, the largest amount that the league can levy, and a one-year suspension is the best the NBA could do to try and move past this situation. Because what they dont want is a full on deep probe with subpoenas, full electronic discovery. A thorough search under the hood with the CSI microscopes would reveal things theyd rather not know.

Read More TSL Stories:

I Regret What I Did | Former Chiefs Assistant Britt Reid Apologizes For Seriously Injuring 5-Year-Old Girl In Drunken Car Crash The Shadow League

T.I. And Atlanta Artists Rise Up Against The Falcons For Choosing Rotimi To Sing Their Team Anthem | What In The A-Town, Shawty? The Shadow League

Read the original post:

Phoenix Suns Governor Robert Sarver Banned For One Year And Fined $10M For Racist And Sexist Behavior | Weak Punishment By NBA Shows Where The Power...

The Supreme Court handed down a brief and highly unusual order Wednesday evening that set the stage for more legal wrangling over the line between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws.

The order itself is very narrow, giving lawyers for an orthodox Jewish university specific instructions on which motions they must file to ask New Yorks appeals courts to reconsider a decision against the university.

A state trial court ordered the university to recognize an LGBTQ student group, something the school refused to do on religious grounds. The school sought relief on the Supreme Courts shadow docket, a process for obtaining expedited relief from the justices without invoking the Courts ordinary processes. And the university actually had a strong case that the state court was at least partly in the wrong, under longstanding Supreme Court precedents.

While the Supreme Courts decision in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance is technically a loss for the university, because it leaves the trial courts order in place, the decision reads like an implicit threat to New Yorks appeals courts. It is very likely that, if New Yorks appeals courts do not step in to permit Yeshiva University to deny recognition to the pride group, the Supreme Court will do so in the near future.

Meanwhile, the four most conservative members of the Court dissented. They also joined an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito which, if it became law, would seriously damage many civil rights litigants ability to bring an anti-discrimination lawsuit against someone who claims that their discrimination is motivated by their religious faith. And Alitos approach could quite easily pick up the fifth vote it needs to become a majority opinion if the Yeshiva University case does return to the justices.

The case arises out of a dispute between Yeshiva, an Orthodox Jewish university in New York City, and a campus Pride Alliance group that wishes to be recognized as an official student organization by the university. The university refuses to do so, claiming that it would violate its sincere religious beliefs about how to form its undergraduate students in Torah values.

After the student group sued, a state trial court ordered the university to recognize the group, and two New York appeals courts denied the universitys efforts to swiftly block that order. That seemingly left the Supreme Court as the universitys last possible source of relief.

But the five justices in the majority the three liberals plus Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the universitys request to block the trial courts decision, noting that the university technically could have filed additional motions in New Yorks appeals courts. Applicants may ask the New York courts to expedite consideration of the merits of their appeal, the Court wrote. They also may file with the Appellate Division a corrected motion for permission to appeal that courts denial of a stay to the New York Court of Appeals.

Thats an unexpected development. The Supreme Court typically does not provide lawyers with such detailed instructions on how they can navigate a states appellate process. Its a sign that this Court, with its recent extraordinary deference to religious conservatives, expects the university should prevail in state courts.

Moreover, Yeshiva actually made a fairly strong argument that the trial courts order violates longstanding doctrines giving religious institutions power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.

Should New Yorks appeals courts continue to deny Yeshiva the relief it seeks, the Supreme Court sent a fairly loud signal in its Wednesday order that it will not stay its hand a second time. If Yeshivas lawyers seek and receive neither expedited review nor interim relief from the New York courts, the Courts order states in its final line, they may return to this Court.

The justices, in other words, appear to be delivering a thinly veiled threat to New Yorks appeals courts: Grant Yeshiva the relief it seeks, or else the Supreme Court will.

Its worth noting that this case arrived at the Supreme Court on its shadow docket, a mix of emergency orders and other expedited matters that the justices decide without full briefing or oral argument.

Historically, when the Court decided a case, it ordinarily did so after the case was fully considered by lower courts, and after the justices received full briefing, heard oral argument, and often spent months drafting an opinion. This lengthy process was intended to prevent the justices from making a careless error in their ultimate decision. Because the Supreme Court has the final word on questions of federal law, it makes sense for it to spend a considerable amount of time with each case because there is no easy way to reconsider a Supreme Court decision.

Beginning in the Trump administration, however, the Court started ignoring its normal practices to rule swiftly in Trumps favor when a lower court blocked one of his policies prompting Justice Sonia Sotomayor to warn that her Court was putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the Trump administration.

The data bears Sotomayors accusation out. During previous administrations, asking the Court to take up a case on its shadow docket was considered such an extraordinary act that even the federal government was reluctant to do it. According to a 2019 paper by University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications averaging one every other [Supreme Court] Term.

But Trumps Justice Department ignored this longstanding norm, filing at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court over the course of less than three years, including 10 in just the year-long Supreme Court term that began in October of 2018. And the Courts Republican-appointed majority rewarded Trump for this behavior, handing his administration a full or partial victory in about two-thirds of cases, according to Vladeck.

One consequence of the Courts eagerness to decide cases quickly and without full deliberation is that conservative private litigants have also started bringing cases on the Courts shadow docket with increasing frequency. And that creates a ton of unnecessary work for the justices. The old norms, which discouraged lawyers from seeking shadow docket relief, didnt just help ensure that the justices fully considered a case before making a decision, they also protected the justices from a cascade of motions seeking their immediate attention.

The Courts order in the Yeshiva University case is consistent with its old practice of encouraging lawyers to seek every possible avenue of relief from lower courts before bringing a matter to the justices attention. But because the order seems designed to pressure lower courts into granting Yeshiva the relief that it seeks, it is unlikely to deter future litigants from bringing shadow docket cases in the future.

In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, Alito claims that his Court should have granted immediate relief to Yeshiva. Thats unsurprising, as Alito frequently takes maximalist stances in favor of religious conservatives.

And, indeed, Alitos opinion takes a distinctly maximalist approach to this case, calling for a legal rule that would make it very difficult to enforce anti-discrimination laws against anyone who claims that their religion requires them to discriminate.

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court held that religious objectors typically must follow the same laws as everyone else. A state may not single out people of faith for inferior treatment that is not imposed on secular individuals or institutions, but religious objectors must follow all neutral law[s] of general applicability.

But Alito claims that New Yorks anti-discrimination law is not neutral or generally applicable because it does not apply to benevolent orders indeed, it does not apply to any club which proves that it is in its nature distinctly private.

These kinds of carveouts from civil rights laws for private clubs are exceedingly common. The federal law banning businesses that offer their services to the public from engaging in many forms of discrimination, for example, exempts a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public. It is likely that the First Amendment, which grants rights of free association to membership organizations that do not apply to public businesses, forbids states from enacting anti-discrimination laws that require genuinely private clubs to accept members they do not want to accept.

Alito, in other words, is saying that, if a state enacts an anti-discrimination law that exempts private clubs which the Constitution most likely requires it to exempt, then it must also exempt religious objectors from that law. In practice, that means Alito would give all religious objectors fairly sweeping exemptions from huge swaths of anti-discrimination law.

In fairness, Alito did suggest in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) that bans on race discrimination, at least in the workplace, may still be applied to religious objectors. But the position he lays out in his Yeshiva University dissent would likely give religious conservatives a broad right to engage in discrimination against women, LGBTQ Americans, and other groups that are often protected by civil rights laws.

And, if New Yorks appellate courts do not rule in Yeshivas favor, Alito will get the chance to pick up the fifth vote he needs to turn his approach into the law, once this case returns to the Supreme Court.

Our goal this month

Now is not the time for paywalls. Now is the time to point out whats hidden in plain sight (for instance, the hundreds of election deniers on ballots across the country), clearly explain the answers to voters questions, and give people the tools they need to be active participants in Americas democracy. Reader gifts help keep our well-sourced, research-driven explanatory journalism free for everyone. By the end of September, were aiming to add 5,000 new financial contributors to our community of Vox supporters. Will you help us reach our goal by making a gift today?

Read more from the original source:

The Supreme Courts order in the Yeshiva University case reads like an implicit threat - Vox.com