offline roulette game

Journalist Andrew Pierce shared his delight at remaining with GB News amidst a significant shake-up at the channel. The political commentator, who co-presents Britain's Newsroom on weekdays alongside former LBC presenter Beverley Turner, took to Twitter to express his contentment at staying put during a substantial clear-out. He tweeted: "Delighted with @beverleyturner to be part of @GBNEWS team which is now beating @SkyNews week in week out. And they said @gbnews wouldn't last." Andrew has come through a major overhaul at GB News unscathed, unlike Mark Dolan and Isabel Webster, who were let go. The reshuffle also impacted ex-Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose show was cut from four days a week to two. In a video posted on Friday, Mark revealed he was dismissed "in minutes" but thanked his former employers for their "nice" handling of the situation. Breakfast host Isabel has yet to make a statement regarding her departure; however, her co-host Eamonn Holmes responded to the news on social media with the words: "Bye my girl x." Ellie Costello is poised to join Eamonn as the new face of the Breakfast programme from Monday to Wednesday, while Stephen Dixon will cover Thursday and Friday. Ben Leo is set to fill Mark's weekend slot. The broadcaster announced the changes on Wednesday, stating that the updated line-up of presenters "will allow us to build on success with a renewed focus and ambition." Ben Briscoe, Head of Programming and Talent at GB News, said: "2024 has been a truly fantastic year for us. Not only are we regularly beating the other established news channels, but we are also making inroads against the big public service broadcaster terrestrial channels. Our initiatives will allow us to build on this success with a renewed focus and ambition." A source disclosed to MailOnline the alleged "real reasons" behind the disappearance of certain presenters from GB News, claiming that Isabel was considered "too woke and not on message" leading to her falling out of favour, while Mark's exit was attributed to "viewing figures not being good". It was noted that Mark's Saturday programme was up against Strictly Come Dancing.

Gov Aliyu restates commitment to new SokotoBruins vs. Canucks live stream: How to watch NHL game for free tonight

EAGAN, Minn. (AP) — Justin Jefferson might be weary of all the safeties shadowing his every route, determined not to let the Minnesota Vikings go deep, but he's hardly angry. The double and triple coverage he continually faces, after all, is a sign of immense respect for his game-breaking ability. The strategy also simply makes sense. “I would do the same," Jefferson said. "It’s either let everybody else go off or let Justin go off. I’m going to let everybody else go off. That would be my game plan.” When the Vikings visit Chicago on Sunday, they're expecting the usual heavy dose of split-safety coverage designed to put a lid on the passing attack and force them to operate primarily underneath. “We see that every week: Teams just have different tendencies on film, and then when we go out on the field they play us totally different,” Jefferson said, later adding: “I don’t really feel like anyone else is getting played how I’m getting played.” Jefferson nonetheless is second in the NFL in receiving yards (912) behind Cincinnati's Ja'Marr Chase, his former college teammate at LSU. Last week, Jefferson set yet another all-time record by passing Torry Holt for the most receiving yards over the first five seasons of a career. Holt logged 80 regular-season games and accumulated 6,784 yards for St. Louis. Jefferson has 6,811 yards — in just 70 games. “I want to go up against those single coverages. I want to go have my opportunities to catch a deep pass downfield, just one-on-one coverage, like a lot of these other receivers get," Jefferson said. "It’s definitely difficult going up against an extra person or an extra two people, but it is what it is and the concepts that we’re drawing up and the ways that we’re trying to get me open, it definitely helps.” With fellow tight end Josh Oliver ruled out of the game on Sunday because of a sprained ankle, T.J. Hockenson is certain to have his heaviest workload since returning from knee surgery four weeks ago. He's also certain that Jefferson will continue to see persistent double-teams. “It puts it on us to make some plays and do some things to get them out of that,” Hockenson said. Vikings coach Kevin O'Connell has been forced to dig deeper into the vault of play designs and game plans to help keep quarterback Sam Darnold and the offense on track. O'Connell said after Minnesota's 12-7 win at Jacksonville, when Darnold threw three interceptions to precipitate a safer strategy down the stretch, that he superseded his play-calling role with the wisdom of a head coach to help win that game. "Not just the egomaniac of wanting to score points and constantly show everybody how smart we are. There was a mode that I think you have to go into sometimes to ensure a victory,” O'Connell said on his weekly show on KFAN radio. Taking what the defense gives is usually the shrewdest strategy. “You’ve got to really implement some new things and some things that maybe you didn’t come across during your early coaching years whether as a coordinator or position coach or even when you’re responsible for a small area of the game plan as a younger coach," O'Connell said. "You really have to kind of look outside the lens of always what you see on tape.” AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/NFL

JERUSALEM — Israel approved a with Lebanon's Hezbollah militants on Tuesday that would end nearly linked to the war in the Gaza Strip. The ceasefire, starting at 4 a.m. local time Wednesday, would mark the first major step toward ending the regionwide unrest triggered by Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. But it does not address the devastating , where Hamas is still holding dozens of hostages and the conflict is more intractable. Hours before the ceasefire with Hezbollah was to take effect, Israel carried out the most intense wave of strikes in Beirut and its southern suburbs since the start of the conflict and issued a record number of evacuation warnings. At least 42 people were killed in strikes across the country, according to local authorities. Another huge airstrike shook Beirut shortly after the ceasefire was announced. There appeared to be lingering disagreement over whether Israel would have the right to strike Hezbollah if it believed the militants had violated the agreement, something Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted was part of the deal but which Lebanese and Hezbollah officials have rejected. Israel's security Cabinet approved the U.S.-France-brokered ceasefire agreement after Netanyahu presented it, his office said. U.S. President Joe Biden, speaking in Washington, called the agreement “good news” and said his administration would make a renewed push for a ceasefire in Gaza. The Biden administration spent much of this year trying to broker a ceasefire and hostage release in Gaza but the talks . President-elect Donald Trump vowed to bring peace to the Middle East without saying how. Still, any halt to the fighting in Lebanon is expected to reduce the likelihood of war between Israel and Iran, which backs both Hezbollah and Hamas and on two occasions earlier this year. Israel says it will ‘attack with might’ if Hezbollah breaks truce Netanyahu presented the ceasefire proposal to Cabinet ministers after a televised address in which he listed accomplishments against Israel’s enemies across the region. He said a ceasefire with Hezbollah would further isolate Hamas in Gaza and allow Israel to focus on its main enemy, Iran. “If Hezbollah breaks the agreement and tries to rearm, we will attack,” he said. “For every violation, we will attack with might.” The ceasefire deal calls for a two-month initial halt in fighting and would require Hezbollah to end its armed presence in a broad swath of southern Lebanon, while Israeli troops would return to their side of the border. Thousands of additional would deploy in the south, and an international panel headed by the United States would monitor compliance. Biden said Israel reserved the right to quickly resume operations in Lebanon if Hezbollah breaks the terms of the truce, but that the deal "was designed to be a permanent cessation of hostilities.” Netanyahu’s office said Israel appreciated the U.S. efforts in securing the deal but “reserves the right to act against every threat to its security.” Lebanon’s caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati welcomed the ceasefire and described it as a crucial step toward stability and the return of displaced people. Hezbollah has said it accepts the proposal, but a senior official with the group said Tuesday it had not seen the agreement in its final form. “After reviewing the agreement signed by the enemy government, we will see if there is a match between what we stated and what was agreed upon by the Lebanese officials,” Mahmoud Qamati, deputy chair of Hezbollah’s political council, told the Al Jazeera news network. “We want an end to the aggression, of course, but not at the expense of the sovereignty of the state," he said, referring to Israel's demand for freedom of action. “Any violation of sovereignty is refused.” Warplanes bombard Beirut and its southern suburbs Even as ceasefire efforts gained momentum in recent days, Israel continued to strike what it called Hezbollah targets across Lebanon while the militants fired rockets, missiles and drones across the border. An Israeli strike on Tuesday leveled a residential building in central Beirut — the second time in recent days warplanes have hit the crowded area near downtown. At least seven people were killed and 37 wounded, according to Lebanon's Health Ministry. Israel also struck a building in Beirut's bustling commercial district of Hamra for the first time, hitting a site around 400 meters (yards) from Lebanon’s Central Bank. There were no reports of casualties. The Israeli military said it struck targets linked to Hezbollah's financial arm. The evacuation warnings covered many areas, including parts of Beirut that previously were not targeted. The warnings sent residents fleeing. Traffic was gridlocked, with mattresses tied to some cars. Dozens of people, some wearing pajamas, gathered in a central square, huddling under blankets or standing around fires as Israeli drones buzzed overhead. Israeli military spokesman Avichay Adraee issued evacuation warnings for 20 buildings in Beirut's southern suburbs, where Hezbollah has a major presence, as well as a warning for the southern town of Naqoura where the U.N. peacekeeping mission, UNIFIL, is headquartered. UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said peacekeepers will not evacuate. Israeli forces reach Litani River in southern Lebanon The Israeli military also said its ground troops clashed with Hezbollah forces and destroyed rocket launchers in the Slouqi area on the eastern end of the Litani River, a few miles from the Israeli border. Under the ceasefire deal, Hezbollah would be required to move its forces north of the Litani, which in some places is about 20 miles north of the border. Hezbollah began firing into northern Israel on Oct. 8, 2023, saying it was showing support for the Palestinians, a day after Hamas carried out its attack on southern Israel, triggering the Gaza war. Israel returned fire on Hezbollah, and the two sides have exchanged barrages ever since. Israel escalated its bombardment in mid-September and later sent troops into Lebanon, vowing to put an end to Hezbollah fire so tens of thousands of evacuated Israelis could return to their homes. More than 3,760 people have been killed by Israeli fire in Lebanon the past 13 months, many of them civilians, according to Lebanese health officials. The bombardment has driven 1.2 million people from their homes. Israel says it has killed more than 2,000 Hezbollah members. Hezbollah fire has forced some 50,000 Israelis to in the country’s north, and its rockets have reached as far south in Israel as Tel Aviv. At least 75 people have been killed, more than half of them civilians. More than 50 Israeli soldiers have died in the ground offensive in Lebanon.By Sani Abdullahi When the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) was established 36 years ago in response to the pervasive menace of road traffic crashes in the country at the time, the founding fathers who were well known human rights activists and advocates of civility in law enforcement never saw any need to make provisions for use of arms by FRSC personnel in the enabling laws. Instead, they preferred a civil approach in the enforcement of traffic rules and regulations by which they believed that drivers would be civil enough to be persuaded by the efficacy of education, which the marshals would give them and their convictions about the rightness of the marshals’ actions would make them to willingly obey traffic rules and regulations without resistance. That civil approach they preferred was devoid of any coercive instruments in traffic management and safety administration and, although novel in the history of law enforcement in Nigeria, it was nevertheless given a try by the then military government, which bought into the ideas as canvassed by the founding fathers, championed by the founding chairman of the FRSC board, Nobel laurent, Professor Wole Soyinka. That was why the original FRSC enabling laws, known as Decree 45 of 1988, made no provisions for either the use of firearms by the FRSC or gave thought to any defensive mechanisms that marshals could rely upon whenever faced with adverse situations by drivers and members of the public. Relying on the use of education and public enlightenment as instruments of authority and potent tools in attitudinal change, therefore, continued to remain the guiding principle in managing drivers and public reactions to the corps’ operational activities over the years. It, however, did not take long after the commencement of full enforcement of the laws by the corps in 1989 following the full year of public enlightenment in 1988 when it became obvious that drivers were not going to exhibit civil traits in their reactions to the demands for enforcement as earlier thought. Thus, cases of knockdowns of patrolmen, violent attacks, destruction of their patrol vehicles and damage to buildings as well as use of various tactics to intimidate, harass and ridicule the personnel operating with civil convictions became daily occurrences, with recorded cases of loss of lives as patrol activities intensified nationwide. As the situation degenerated across the country, with threats of further violence on the personnel becoming obvious, the Federal Military Government was left with no opinion but to change its mind against the civil approach five years later when it approved firearms for the corps in the amendment to the original Decree 45 in 1992. Accordingly, provisions for arms for the corps were made in the 1992 amendment decree, otherwise referred to as Decree 35 of 1992. In giving impetus to the new approach, Major General Haldu Anthony Hananiya, who took over the mantle of leadership of the FRSC from the pioneer Corps Marshal, Dr. Olu Agunloye, in 1994, did not hide his preference for the military face of the corps. For instance, he introduced some semblances of military orientation, including the wearing of uniform by all categories of staff, sending some senior officers as well as marshals on arms training at some military institutions, while making parade and other traditional practices associated with paramilitary organizations fully entrenched in the system. Meanwhile, the corps’ uniform that used to be round collars to symbolize civility was changed to the normal collar type commonly worn by every paramilitary agency in the country even as the Eagle was superimposed on the Owl which was standing conspicuously on the corps’ logo to give a more distinct outlook for the FRSC. It must, however, be noted that despite all the arrangements made by General Hananiya throughout his first tenure, and even when he returned in his second sojourn, arms were actually never introduced into the operational strategies of the corps as at 2007 when he finally left, against the extant provisions in the FRSC laws. The status quo on the provision of arms for the corps remained till the emergence of civil democratic rule in 1999 when the military decrees were abrogated and re-enacted by the National Assembly with the FRSC enabling laws becoming the Establishment Act 2007. Even then, the provisions for arms for the corps were retained under Section 19 of the act. Evidently, from the 1992 amendment decree, which first introduced arms bearing to the FRSC, to the current 2007 Establishment Act, and despite the relevant training and reorientation programmes organized by the corps under successive corps marshals in the face of incivility to the personnel as well as damage caused to the facilities of the organization by various antagonists, the corps has continued to operate without recourse to arms or plans on how to react defensively to violence by drivers and members of the public. According to result of survey covering 2016, which was recently released, FRSC personnel have been enduring various provocations from drivers and misguided members of the public. These, according to the survey, included 1,266 violent attacks, 132 assault cases, 35 cases of abduction, 21 armed attacks and 82 mob attacks. Others were 107 knockdowns, 23 cases of harassment, 20 kidnappings and 46 killings even as the personnel continued to bear the brunt. This is against the fact that law enforcement anywhere in the world involves use of some coercive instruments, bearing in mind that majority of the offenders, even in the most advanced and civilized societies hardly submit themselves willingly all the times to law enforcement officers, unless there is evident fear of sanctions and threats of consequences of their act of violence against the enforcers. Moreover, no state will sit back to allow sustained acts of violence, intimidation and humiliation to its men in uniform, knowing that uniform, by its social values represents the presence of the state wherever the personnel appear on them. Consequently, personnel on uniform must always be respected and protected by the citizenry. It was with that spirit in mind that provisions to arm the FRSC personnel against the organization’s original civil outlook were made 32 years ago as reflected in the abrogated Decrees and the FRSC Establishment Act 2007 which is being amended by the National Assembly with proposals for the setting up of special armed squads for the Corps. In reality, the sustained aggression, violence and unprovoked intimidation by the civil populace against the personnel of the FRSC carrying out their legitimate duties of creating safer road environment is most condemnable and uncivilized. That’s why the consensus among some security analysts in the country is that, the once glamorized civility of the FRSC which made its personnel so vulnerable to various attacks and incapable of defending themselves is no longer tenable under the present circumstances, and must therefore, give way to a new orientation that can enhance the Corps’ capacity to carryout its statutory responsibilities most effectively without threats of attack. This, they said, is the panacea for guaranteeing greater safety and security on the nation’s highways. • Abdullahi is the Deputy Corps Commander in charge of Strategy in the Corps Marshal’s office.

In late December, Donald Trump suggested the United States should retake control of the Panama Canal in his second term. He claims Panama is imposing “ridiculous” fees on ships passing through this vital waterway connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The Panama Canal is a man-made waterway that cuts through central Panama for 51 miles, using a system of locks and reservoirs to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This route saves ships from traveling an extra 7,000 miles around South America’s Cape Horn. “The Panama Canal is considered a VITAL National Asset for the United States, due to its critical role to America’s Economy and National Security,” Trump said on Truth Social on Dec. 21. “The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, especially knowing the extraordinary generosity that has been bestowed to Panama by the U.S. This complete ‘rip-off’ of our Country will immediately stop,” he added. Trump repeated these claims during a speech at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest in Arizona on Dec. 22. “If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full quickly and without question,” he said. Following Trump’s comments, Google search data shows there’s been a spike in searches of people asking which country — the U.S. or Panama — has authority over the Panama Canal. THE QUESTION Does the U.S. have any authority over the Panama Canal? THE SOURCES Panama Canal Authority The Embassy of Panama U.S. Department of State’s Office of the Historian U.S. Census Bureau The Library of Congress Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino GovInfo , a service of the United States Government Publishing Office that provides free public access to official publications from all three branches of the federal government Jorge Luis Quijano, the Panama Canal administrator from 2014 to 2019, Benjamin Gedan, Ph.D. , director of the Latin America Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. THE ANSWER No, the U.S. does not have any authority over the Panama Canal, but it used to. Sign up for the VERIFY Fast Facts daily Newsletter! WHAT WE FOUND The U.S. does not have any authority over the Panama Canal. The waterway, which was built by the U.S. in the early 1900s, opened in 1914 and remained under U.S. government control until treaties signed in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter set terms for its eventual transfer to Panama. The two countries jointly operated the canal until December 1999, after which Panama assumed full control. On Dec. 22, in response to Trump’s comments, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino posted a video on X declaring that “every square meter of the canal belongs to Panama and will continue to belong” to his country. Without mentioning Trump by name, Mulino addressed the president-elect’s complaints over rising fees for ships crossing the canal, saying they are set by experts who take into account operational costs, and supply and demand factors. “The tariffs are not set on a whim,” Mulino said. He noted that Panama has expanded the canal over the years to increase ship traffic “on its own initiative,” and added that shipping fee increases help pay for improvements. “Panamanians may have different views on many issues, but when it comes to our canal, and our sovereignty, we will all unite under our Panamanian flag,” Mulino said. A little over an hour later, Trump responded to Mulino’s remarks on Truth Social, saying: “We’ll see about that!” He also posted a picture of a U.S. flag planted in the canal zone under the phrase, “Welcome to the United States Canal!” The Panama Canal’s history An effort to establish a canal through Panama began with the French in 1880, but financial troubles made the initiative fail after nearly nine years of little progress, according to the Embassy of Panama in the United States . Malaria, yellow fever and other tropical diseases devastated a workforce that was already struggling with especially dangerous terrain and harsh working conditions in the jungle. These conditions eventually cost more than 20,000 lives by some estimates, the U.S. Department of State’s Office of the Historian says on its website . At this time, Panama was a province of Colombia, which refused to ratify a subsequent 1901 treaty licensing U.S. interests to build the Panama Canal. President Theodore Roosevelt responded to Colombia’s refusal by dispatching U.S. warships to Panama’s Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The U.S. also pre-wrote a constitution that would be ready after Panamanian independence, which gave American forces “the right to intervene in any part of Panama, to re-establish public peace and constitutional order.” In part because Colombian troops were unable to traverse harsh jungles, Panama declared an effectively bloodless independence within hours on Nov. 3, 1903. The newly-declared Republic of Panama soon signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903 , which provided the U.S. with a 10-mile wide strip of land for the canal, a one-time $10 million payment to Panama, and an annual annuity of $250,000. The U.S. also agreed to guarantee the independence of Panama, according to the Office of the Historian. After more than a decade of construction, the U.S. finished building the canal on Aug. 15, 1914. Almost immediately, some Panamanians began questioning the validity of U.S. control of the canal, which led to what became known in the country as the “generational struggle” to take it over. The U.S. annulled its right to intervene in Panama in the 1930s. By the 1970s, with its administrative costs sharply increasing, the U.S. government spent years negotiating with Panama to cede control of the waterway. The Carter administration worked with the government of Omar Torrijos, and the two sides eventually decided that their best chance for ratification was to submit two treaties to the U.S. Senate , the “Permanent Neutrality Treaty” and the “Panama Canal Treaty.” The first, which continues in perpetuity, gives the U.S. the right to act to ensure the canal remains open and secure. The second stated that the U.S. would turn over the canal to Panama on Dec. 31, 1999. Both were signed in 1977 and ratified the following year. “At noon on December 31, 1999, Panama took over full operation, administration and maintenance of the Canal, in compliance with the Torrijos-Carter Treaties negotiated with the United States in 1977,” said the Embassy of Panama. “The waterway is now managed by the Panama Canal Authority, an autonomous government entity.” Jorge Luis Quijano, who served as the Panama Canal’s administrator from 2014 to 2019, says the neutrality treaty does give the U.S. the right to act if the canal’s operation is threatened due to military conflict — but not to reassert control. “There’s no clause of any kind in the neutrality agreement that allows for the taking back of the canal,” Quijano told the Associated Press. “Legally, there’s no way, under normal circumstances, to recover territory that was used previously.” Benjamin Gedan, director of the Latin America Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., agrees. “There’s very little wiggle room, absent a second U.S. invasion of Panama, to retake control of the Panama Canal in practical terms,” Gedan said. The Associated Press contributed to this report .

Nz’s Finest Punk 'N’ Rollers, The D4 Announce Aotearoa Summer Tour Feb/march 2025Judiciary on verge of institutionalising independence