Thursday, November 3, 2016

Train services on two of Singapore’s Mass Rapid Transit system lines, both operated by SMRT Corporation, were disrupted at separate times yesterday in two incidents.

During the morning rush hour, six stations of the Circle MRT Line (CCL) were without train service in both directions during the morning rush hour following what SMRT described as “intermittent signal interference”. The company first announced the signalling fault on Twitter at 7:37 am, advising commuters to anticipate 10 additional minutes of travel time in the commute between Pasir Panjang and one-north stations. The fault was announced rectified two minutes later by another tweet from SMRT, though delays were still expected in the direction of Dhoby Ghaut station due to congestion at stations and on trains.

SMRT issued another tweet at 8:09 am, alerting commuters to another signalling fault affecting the CCL, on the stretch between Botanic Gardens and HarbourFront stations.

Initially informing commuters that the issue would add 10 minutes of travel time along the affected stretch, the company later revised this to 20, and finally, 30 minutes in subsequent tweets, attributing the delays to “intermittent signalling faults”.

The company later announced via Twitter service unavailable between Botanic Gardens and Marymount stations at 9:06 am, whilst offering free bus services along the length of the CCL. SMRT later amended the announcement in another tweet to encompass the stretch between Botanic Gardens and Serangoon stations. Train service was restored along the affected stretch by about 10:27 am.

SMRT had previously experienced disruptions in service on the CCL for five consecutive days in September, also attributable to signalling issues, leading to authorities briefly switching off mobile signals at four CCL stations for two hours on September 2 during investigations. Most of the disruptions took place during peak hours, leading to suspicion the telecommunications network could be interfering with the train signalling system. After tests proved inconclusive following the lack of a disruption that day, the decision was made to turn off telecommunications signals in the event of another disruption.

“It’s very frustrating”, commented a commuter, 41-year-old Joseph Lim. “The trains are sometimes moving and sometimes getting stuck. I don’t know whether to stay on board. The communication has been insufficient”.

Another commuter, 29-year-old Alice Pan, stated, “I am now stuck at the station with no way to get to work. I can’t get on any SBS buses because they are full and there’s no free shuttle bus in sight. I can’t get any cabs either”. Pan was stranded in a train for an hour at Lorong Chuan station.

36-year-old Sean Chew, said of his experience during the incident, “I was stuck at Buona Vista for more than one hour. I didn’t want to take the bus because it was very crowded. So no choice, had to wait […] Luckily I just finished work.”

However, following the morning incidents, a stalled train on the East West MRT Line led to a half-hour disruption during the evening peak hour on the same day. SMRT informed commuters of the disruption, between Queenstown and Outram Park stations in the direction of Pasir Ris station, on Twitter at 5:48 pm, attributing it to a “train fault” at Tiong Bahru station. In the same tweet, SMRT estimated that the issue would be resolved around 6:10 pm. Due to the disruption, the company offered free bus services along the affected stretch in a subsequent tweet.

At 6:20 pm, SMRT announced on Twitter that it had cleared the disruption by removing the stalled train, and that trains were “progressively return[ing] to normal speed”. The company continued to offer free bus services until 7 pm, when it announced the termination of the service on Twitter.

In the wake of yesterday’s incidents, commuters criticized SMRT’s handling of the matter on social media, citing SMRT’s failure to provide sufficient information or sufficient buses for commuters, and uploading photos of the congestion.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

The Peel Hotel, located in Melbourne, Australia has been given permission by the Victorian State Civil and Administrative Tribunal to ban lesbians and heterosexuals from going into their bar which is catered specifically for gay men.

Owner of the hotel Tom McFeely, said he went to the tribunal in order to protect gay males by providing them with a bar that has a friendly atmosphere and where the men can be in a “non-threatening” situation.

“If I can limit the number of heterosexuals entering the Peel, then that helps me keep the safe balance. Heterosexuals have other places to go to; my homosexuals do not,” said McFeely adding that there are over 2,000 bars and clubs around Australia for heterosexuals to attend.

The hotel’s commissioner says that many of the gay men who attend the bar felt uncomfortable and felt like zoo animals.

“(They) also have felt as though they’ve been like a zoo exhibit with big groups of women on hens’ parties coming to the club,” said the Peels Hotel Commission Chief, Helen Szoke who also said that many of the bars gay men have been harassed or have been threatened with violence.

Lesbians and heterosexual individuals are still allowed to stay at the hotel.

Cate McKenzie, who is the chief of the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission also supports the ruling saying, “This would undermine or destroy the atmosphere which the company wishes to create. Sometimes heterosexual groups and lesbian groups insult and deride and are even physically violent towards the gay male patrons. To regard the gay male patrons of the venue as providing an entertainment or spectacle to be stared at, as one would at an animal at a zoo, devalues and dehumanizes them.”

The Victorian Gay and Lesbian Lobby Group says that the ruling makes the Peel Hotel one of the only two establishments in Melbourne to cater specifically to gay men.

Friday, February 21, 2014

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Ian Narev, the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, this morning “unreservedly” apologised to clients who lost money in a scandal involving the bank’s financial planning services arm.

Last week, a Senate enquiry found financial advisers from the Commonwealth Bank had made high-risk investments of clients’ money without the clients’ permission, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars lost. The Senate enquiry called for a Royal Commission into the bank, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

Mr Narev stated the bank’s performance in providing financial advice was “unacceptable”, and the bank was launching a scheme to compensate clients who lost money due to the planners’ actions.

In a statement Mr Narev said, “Poor advice provided by some of our advisers between 2003 and 2012 caused financial loss and distress and I am truly sorry for that. […] There have been changes in management, structure and culture. We have also invested in new systems, implemented new processes, enhanced adviser supervision and improved training.”

An investigation by Fairfax Media instigated the Senate inquiry into the Commonwealth Bank’s financial planning division and ASIC.

Whistleblower Jeff Morris, who reported the misconduct of the bank to ASIC six years ago, said in an article for The Sydney Morning Herald that neither the bank nor ASIC should be in control of the compensation program.

Monday, September 25, 2017

On Friday, Transport for London (TfL) announced US-based taxi booking application Uber would not get a renewed private hire operator license after their current permit expires at the end of the month. The regulatory body released an official statement on their website and stated Uber London Limited was “not fit and proper to hold a private hire operator license”.

TfL said Uber London “demonstrate[d] a lack of corporate responsibility” for reporting serious criminal offences, and for obtaining background of the drivers and medical certificates. In August, police said Uber allowed a driver despite allegations of sexually assaulting a passenger. The company has been accused of sexism and bullying. TfL in its statement also complained about possible use of “greyball” software to prevent officials from accessing the application for law enforcement duties.

According to Uber’s statistics, about 3.5 million people in London use Uber. There are some 40 thousand drivers tied with Uber within the British capital. Per the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, Uber can appeal against TfL’s decision within three weeks. Uber received an interim renewal for four months in May, and it is set to expire at the end of the month. To this announcement, Uber London’s General Manager Tom Elvidge said, “By wanting to ban our app from the capital Transport for London and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice. If this decision stands, it will put more than 40,000 licensed drivers out of work and deprive Londoners of a convenient and affordable form of transport. To defend the livelihoods of all those drivers, and the consumer choice of millions of Londoners who use our app, we intend to immediately challenge this in the courts.” He also added, “This ban would show the world that, far from being open, London is closed to innovative companies who bring choice to consumers.”

TfL said Uber’s irresponsibility could compromise the safety and security of the public. In contrast, Uber’s response said their service enhances safety. London mayor Sadiq Khan, on Facebook, said, “[…]all companies in London must play by the rules and adhere to the high standards we expect — particularly when it comes to the safety of customers. Providing an innovative service must not be at the expense of customer safety and security. I fully support TfL’s decision — it would be wrong if TfL continued to license Uber if there is any way that this could pose a threat to Londoners’ safety and security. Any operator of private hire services in London needs to play by the rules.”

Uber has received criticism from traditional taxi drivers as well as government officials. Uber was banned from Bulgaria and Denmark, and faces regulatory issues in France, Italy, Hungary, and Spain. It also faced legal inquiry for use of greyball in the US to resist government regulation of the application. Regarding the complaint about improper use of use of Greyball, Elvidge cited an independent review and said it “found that ‘greyball’ has never been used or considered in the UK for the purposes cited by TfL”. Uber operates in over 40 cities and towns in the UK.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Renault driver Fernando Alonso finished third in the Brazilian Grand Prix, held at the Autodromo Carlos Pace near São Paulo. McLaren drivers and championship rivals Juan Pablo Montoya and Kimi Raikonnen finished first and second respectively; although Alonso’s third place decreased his lead in championship points over Raikonnen, his closest rival, to 23, he nonetheless was able to secure the 2005 Drivers’ World Championship. Since the winner of a Formula One Grand Prix earns 10 points and only two races remain, Raikonnen no longer has a mathematical possibility of becoming World Champion.

Alonso thus ends the five-year long reign of Michael Schumacher at the top of Formula One. At 24, he also became the youngest Formula One World Champion, ahead of Brazilian driver Emerson Fittipaldi, who was 25 when he took the crown in 1972. He is also the first Spaniard to take that title.

Even though the Drivers’ Championship is over, the Constructors’ Championship will most likely go down to the wire during the last two races of the season in Suzuka (Japan) and Shanghai. Even though Renault has led the Championship for most of the season, Raikonnen’s recent victories in the Hungarian, Turkish, Belgian and Brazilian Grand Prix have given McLaren a two-point lead over Renault, ensuring that both teams will fight hard for every point in the final races.

The race commenced with an incident between David Coulthard and Antonio Pizzonio touching wheels, forcing the latter’s Williams-BMW into his teammate Mark Webber’s car, putting all three of them out of the race (Webber eventually did manage to rejoin after lengthy repairs). The incident necessitated the deployment of the safety car until the track was cleared. Following the restart, Giancarlo Fisichella repassed reigning seven-times world champion Michael Schumacher almost immediately, although Schumacher ultimately regained the position during the first pitstop round.

Montoya was never challenged for the race lead, and was not required to assist his teammate as Alonso’s third place ensured that a win for Raikonnen would have made no difference regarding the outcome of the world championship. McLaren’s one-two finish was their first such result since the 2000 Austrian Grand Prix.

Despite pre-race concerns about rain, the race remained dry.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

A judge in the High Court in Aberdeen, Scotland has criticised the care doctors gave to baby Alexis Matheson. Lord Uist made the comments while sentencing Mark Simpson, who was yesterday convicted of murdering the six-week-old girl.

Simpson, 29, will serve at least twenty years of his life sentence after he attacked Alexis — the child of his then-girlfriend Ilona Sheach, who he blamed for Alexis’s wounds — over the course of a month. The child suffered broken ribs and brain damage. Lord Uist said staff at Woodside Medical Group might have been able to prevent the death but failed to realise the baby was being hurt deliberately.

Sheach had initially been unable to get an appointment at Aberdeen-based Woodside for her daughter; instead, Dr Mohammed Athar spoke on the phone with Sheach and prescribed three drugs without seeing the infant. When she did see a doctor the following week despite being, said Lord Uist, “seriously concerned” for Alexis’s health, the doctor she saw — Linda Mackay — believed Sheach’s explanation the baby was constipated. She felt Alexis’s blood-red eyes were due to straining; a consultant neurosurgeon testified at trial that this did not explain the subconjunctival haemorrhages in the eyes.

That consultant felt a referral to a paediatrician would have been approrpiate. A consultant paediatrician told the court if Dr Mckay had phoned one Alexis would have been urgently hospitalised. These circumstances have led to calls for legislative changes, according to The Scotsman, which compared the death to the recent Baby P case in neighbouring England. Lord Uist also made this comparison, saying “Scottish health authorities have to treat this case with a similar degree of importance and urgency” to “[t]he Baby P case down south”.

Lord Uist was “very disturbed” that “nothing was done” following Dr Mackay’s assessment. He also criticised the delay in seeing a doctor, saying “[i]t is my opinion the appointments system operated at this surgery may require urgent review so as to ensure children requiring urgent attention receive it by being seen by a doctor.”

He continued “[w]hether the death of baby Alexis could have been prevented had she been so referred is a matter which, in my opinion, merits a very full inquiry. The training of GPs, and also health visitors, to detect signs of non-accidental injury may be a matter that requires further consideration.”

The same day as these comments, Crown Office announced that a fatal accident inquiry will occur. “These are very serious criticisms by Lord Uist of the way the health services operated,” said Scottish Conservatives health spokesman Murdo Fraser. “Clearly, there were serious failings in relation to this baby’s treatment and lessons have to be learned from this case.”

The health board stated “NHS Grampian and the Woodside Medical Practice would like to extend their condolences to Alexis’s family. We understand that Lord Uist has issued a statement that it is critical of perceived failings in the care given to Alexis. We will consider these comments very carefully.”

The Scottish Government has also taken note. “We extend our deepest condolences to the family of Alexis Matheson,” according to a spokeswoman. “We continue to monitor the situation very closely, and will await the findings of the fatal accident inquiry. Following this we will work with the health board to determine any necessary changes and ensure that any lessons are learned.”