“We are extremely honored to present the new repositioning of the Park Plaza brand and logo as part of a comprehensive restructuring of our brand architecture – a process we began last year with the launch of the Radisson Hotel Group. Park Plaza is a strong and recognizable name, especially in the London market, and the new position of this famous brand is in line with our ambitions to provide our guests, owners, investors and talents with unforgettable moments, while providing a clear and attractive offer in our brand’s entire portfolio. This brand repositioning will help us add value and allow us to continue to be the best possible partner for our stakeholders. ” stated Federico J. Gonzalez-Tejera, President and CEO of Radisson Hospitality AB and Chairman of the Board of Radisson Hotel Group Global, Park Plaza is one of the largest international brands of the top-upscale category in central London, with 3.200 rooms available and some of the largest congress and multifunctional halls in the capital. In addition, the brand is present in other capitals and regional centers such as Amsterdam, Berlin, Bangkok, Beijing, Nuremberg, Cardiff, Leeds and Nottingham, as well as tourist destinations in Pula and Medulin in Croatia. Radisson Hotel Group and PPHE Hotel Group, as Radisson’s exclusive partner for its Park Plaza brand in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, today unveiled the first phase of introducing a new Park Plaza brand identity. Park Plaza Histria, Hotel Pula The new brand identity, which is now present on all digital platforms and communication channels, including the Internet and social networks, is supported by a new logo inspired by the unique and sophisticated spaces that feature objects from the Park Plaza portfolio. Park Plaza brand new philosophy After an extensive investment program that has made the Park Plaza portfolio richer with four new openings since 2015, the completion of comprehensive repositioning programs for the two hotels in 2018. and several other repositioning programs in the final stages, PPHE has truly elevated the Park Plaza portfolio to the level of a posh hotel product, PPHE Hotel Groupe points out, adding that Park Plaza is now firmly positioned as an international brand of the top-upscale category. brand identity is fully compliant with the requirements of a modern high quality product. The redesigned brand identity exudes style and sophistication and reflects a true understanding of its guests and the local ambience in which each individual brand-owned facility is located. Supported by three key pillars – authentic service, contemporary spirit and local sights, The brand’s modernized identity confirms its commitment to providing each guest with a true and original experience through elegantly decorated and distinctively designed hotels with exciting restaurants and bars that exude a lively atmosphere. “After a complete transformation and repositioning of our portfolio in recent years, we are proud to present the enhanced identity of the Park Plaza brand that further allows us to create memorable moments for our guests and offer increased property value to our investors. The new visual identity and logo complement the growth of the brand and represent modern and sophisticated facilities that form part of our real estate portfolio. We are currently finalizing plans to launch a new brand identity in all facilities across Europe and, in cooperation with Radisson Hotel Group, for Asia Pacific hotels. pointed out Boris Ivesha, PPHE Hotel Group Radisson and PPHE continue to develop key brand features through recently introduced guest experience initiatives, such as introducing an enhanced sleeping experience thanks to luxury bedding, a dedicated fragrance program, creating social destinations and focal destinations where the local community and guests socialize together in a vibrant environment. -entertaining offer. Additional features of the brand include an innovative approach to design, lighting and ambience.
The deal has to be approved by members of Congress who may receive formal notification as soon as next month, two of the people said. Congress could choose to block a final agreement.It would be the first drone sale after President Donald Trump’s administration moved ahead with its plan to sell more drones to more countries by reinterpreting an international arms control agreement called the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).While Taiwan’s military is well-trained and well-equipped with mostly US-made hardware, China has a huge numerical superiority and is adding advanced equipment of its own.Taiwan submitted its request to buy armed drones early this year, one of the people familiar with the talks said. The United States last week sent Taiwan the pricing and availability data for the deal, a key step that denotes official approval to advance the sale. It is, however, non-binding and could be reversed. The United States is negotiating the sale of at least four of its large sophisticated aerial drones to Taiwan for the first time, according to six US sources familiar with the negotiations, in a deal that is likely to ratchet up tensions with China.The SeaGuardian surveillance drones have a range of 6,000 nautical miles (11,100 km), far greater than the 160-mile range of Taiwan’s current fleet of drones.While the sale of the unmanned aerial vehicles has been tacitly authorized by the State Department, two of the people said, it is not known whether the US officials have approved exporting the drones with weapons attached, one of them said. A deal for the four drones, ground stations, spares, training and support could be worth around $600 million using previous sales as a guide. There could also be options for additional units in the future, one of the people said.The island is bolstering its defenses in the face of what it sees as increasingly threatening moves by Beijing, such as regular Chinese air force and naval exercises near TaiwanRelations between Beijing and Washington – already at their lowest point in decades over accusations of spying, a trade war, the coronavirus and Hong Kong – could fray more if the deal gets the final go-ahead from US officials. The Pentagon has said arms sales to Taiwan will continue, and the Trump administration has kept a steady pace of Navy warships passing through the Taiwan Strait.China claims Taiwan as its own territory, and Beijing has never renounced the use of force to bring the self-ruled island under its control. Beijing has denounced the Trump administration’s increased support for Taiwan.China’s sophisticated air defenses could likely shoot down a handful of drones, according to Bonnie Glaser, the director of the China Power Project at CSIS, a Washington think tank. But she still expects “China to scream about even the smallest arms sale that the US makes to Taiwan because any sale challenges the ‘One China’ principle.””They get particularly agitated if they think it’s an offensive capability,” she said, adding that she expected the Trump administration to be less cautious than its predecessors.The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States did not respond to a request for comment.”As a matter of policy we do not comment on or confirm proposed defense sales or transfers until they have been formally notified to Congress,” a State Department spokesman said.Only for few US alliesThe US has been eager to sell Taiwan tanks and fighter jets, but the deal to sell drones would be notable since only a few close allies – including Britain, Italy, Australia, Japan and South Korea – have been allowed to purchase the largest US-made drones.Currently, the Taiwanese government has a fleet of 26 Albatross drones made by Taiwan’s National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology, a quasi-defense ministry research agency, that can fly 160 nautical miles (300 km), or 80 before returning to base, according to records kept by the Bard Center for the Study of the Drone.General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc’s SeaGuardian has an airframe that can handle carrying weapons – but only if contractually allowed by the US government.The United States has sold France unarmed MQ-9 Reapers which are similar to SeaGuardians, and later gave permission to arm them.Last year, the United States approved a potential sale to Taiwan of 108 General Dynamics Corp M1A2 Abrams tanks worth around $2 billion as well as anti-tank and anti-aircraft munitions. A separate sale of 66 Lockheed Martin-made fighter jets also made it through the State Department’s process.In recent weeks, China said it will sanction Lockheed Martin Co for involvement in the latest US arms sale to Taiwan.Topics :
NZ Herald 5 January 2018Family First Comment: Superb commentary from Dr Paul Moon… “One of the arguments in the 20th century that convinced many people of the error of executions was that occasionally, mistakes were made in judging someone guilty, and when it came to the death penalty, one mistake was one mistake too many. Recent overseas examples of people suffering from mental illness who have sought a termination of their lives (and been granted their wish by the medical profession), only to have a last-minute change of heart, shows that the risk of error when it comes to euthanasia is very real. Do we still hold to the view that one mistake is one too many? New Zealand finally dispensed with the death penalty because when knee-jerk emotional instincts were set aside, the moral, social, and ethical arguments against legal killings proved overwhelming. It will be a test to see if the country retains that perspective as the advocates of euthanasia push for what would amount to a reversal of this enlightened trajectory.”www.protect.org.nz – Make a submission today! Dr Paul Moon is Professor of History at Auckland University of Technology.Even as the noose was being placed around Walter Boulton’s neck on February 18, 1957, New Zealanders were growing increasingly uncomfortable with the notion of capital punishment. It was a sentiment no doubt strengthened by reports that instead of Boulton’s neck snapping immediately, he was left in agony while the rope slowly strangled him to death. In 1961, on the back of growing public opinion which saw the state sanction of killing as unenlightened, Parliament abolished the death penalty (except for the crime of treason, for which the option of execution remained until 1989, when this exemption was also removed).It is useful to reflect on the progress of death penalty abolitionists in New Zealand in the 20th century, and while it might be simplistic to transpose all their arguments to the current euthanasia debate, there are some significant themes that apply in both areas. During a 1941 parliamentary debate on the death penalty, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Rex Mason, described the state’s right to administer the death penalty as uncivilised and “backward”. Four years later, another Labour MP emphasised New Zealand’s reputation as a “progressive country” when arguing against capital punishment.As concerns over the morality of the state killing certain categories of its citizens mounted, abolitionists pointed out that the death penalty had detrimental psychological effects on those administering it. The testimony of some of those present at these killings highlighted the cold-bloodedness of the process, and the effects it left on them for life. One prison psychologist wrote of the feeling of “complete revulsion” at witnessing someone having their life terminated, despite the fact that the law had warranted it. Every execution needed an executioner, and those who took on that role also became victims in a way.Death penalty proponents, on the other hand, responded by suggesting that a life spent in prison could be worse than the death penalty, and that while people might oppose the state killing the worst of its criminals, it was sometimes a “practical” undertaking — a means of protecting society from the worst of its underbelly. However, by the 1950s, such “rational” arguments were increasingly crashing into the reality of society ending the lives of some of its members. The fact that prohibitions on public executions had long been in force was the giveaway clue that while the principle might have made sense, the practice of legally approved killings remained as abhorrent as ever.How the liberal worm has turned since. The same arguments used by progressives for the abolition of the death penalty in the 20th century have been misappropriated by those advocating for a new age of state-sanctioned killing — this time wrapped up in the euphemism of euthanasia, or the even more morbidly saccharine and utterly misleading “death with dignity”. In cases of euthanasia, it may be a doctor rather than a hangman carrying out the killing, but there is no reason to think the psychological effects on those involved in euthanasia will be any less severe, or that the fragile value we place on human life will not again be degraded. And the principle of the state giving permission for lives to be terminated on the basis of their being “worthy” and “unworthy” applies to both areas. The distinction is only that in capitalpunishment cases, death was the consequence of the state deeming that the life of a person (usually a murderer) was not worth continuing, while in euthanasia, it is the state backing the individual’s determination that their own life no longer has worth for physical or psychological reasons.One of the arguments in the 20th century that convinced many people of the error of executions was that occasionally, mistakes were made in judging someone guilty, and when it came to the death penalty, one mistake was one mistake too many. Recent overseas examples of people suffering from mental illness who have sought a termination of their lives (and been granted their wish by the medical profession), only to have a last-minute change of heart, shows that the risk of error when it comes to euthanasia is very real. Do we still hold to the view that one mistake is one too many? New Zealand finally dispensed with the death penalty because when knee-jerk emotional instincts were set aside, the moral, social, and ethical arguments against legal killings proved overwhelming. It will be a test to see if the country retains that perspective as the advocates of euthanasia push for what would amount to a reversal of this enlightened trajectory.
Brian Dozier never played a regular-season game for the Padres, but the veteran second baseman still holds a grudge against the franchise.Dozier expected to crack the club’s Opening Day roster after signing with San Diego in the offseason. He was instead cut during summer camp and signed to a minor league contract by the Mets. As his speed and on-base skills have waned, though, his ability to make a difference with an MLB team has shrunk. He spent the second half of last season with the World Series champion Nationals in a reserve role and figures to be a role player moving forward.Still, Dozier has hopes of being an MLB regular and apparently believes San Diego misrepresented his opportunity to make its roster.Dozier got his first start of the year Thursday with the Mets. It seems he won’t soon forget his short stint with the Padres, because he feels the organization tricked him.”I’m a big transparency guy,” Dozier said (per Fox Sports and the San Diego Union-Tribune). “I like people to be honest with me. That wasn’t the case over there. I had to get out of there. I’ll leave it at that.”Brian Dozier, the newest Met, referred to his brief experience with the Padres as a “debacle.” Asked to elaborate, he said, “I’m a big transparency guy. I like people to be honest with me. That wasn’t the case over there. I had to get out of there. I’ll leave it at that.”— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) July 30, 2020MORE: Behind Joe Kelly’s harsh suspensionPadres manager Jayce Tingler told reporters he doesn’t know why Dozier feels the way he does.”We pride ourselves (on) being transparent, (on) being honest. We wish him nothing the but best of luck over there. . . . I can’t speak for the way he feels,” Tingler said, per the Union-Tribune.Dozier, 33, is eight home runs away from 200 in his career, a significant mark for a middle infielder. He also has more than 100 career stolen bases.
With high expectations for her students, she feels that young, developing athletes can benefit greatly from experiences like these.”Some of my best memories as a kid growing up in Ottawa is when we had summer camps every year in Ontario. It’s a good way to get in touch with your teammates and your competitors and just train together and keep the sport going.”The development of one’s sport is always important with athletes, and Groves says facilities like the Pomeroy Sport Centre help in furthering the sport of speedskating.”It’s awesome! Speedskating is a pretty marginal sport in Canada in terms of facilities. So to have a facility like this here gives [athletes] more continuity and longer seasons to help develop and grow the sport hopefully.”Advertisement Groves’ appearance in Fort St. John, her first since the early 90’s, came at the request of Fort St. John native and fellow competitive Team Canada speedskater, Jay Morrison, who requested she come to the Energetic City to help put on the development camp with him.The Olympic speedskater agreed, saying it’s a fun way to give back to the sport.She says a focus of the camp will be the importance of proper execution when skating around the oval.- Advertisement -“Speedskating is an extremely technical sport and I think what I can bring at least is years of experience learning proper technique and trying to instill in them what that proper technique is and getting them to work on that.”The camp is divided into two separate age groups, but despite the age differences, Grove says it will be tough love, just like she experienced growing up and learning the sport.”I came from a coach that was pretty demanding and had very high expectations. So I kind of think I’ll be adopting a bit of that attitude. You have to have the right kind of brain and attitude to be good at this sport and there is not a lot of room for bad technique. So that’s what I think I’ll be a stickler for.”Advertisement Groves admits coaching is a side of the sport she is fairly new at, but says the opportunity to pass on her knowledge is something she enjoys.”It’s such a rare opportunity to connect with kids at that level…You kind of underestimate or you don’t even realize the impact you have on kids as an athlete.”Groves brings quite an impressive resume with her to Fort St. John. She won silver medals in both the 1500 metre and Team Pursuit events at the 2006 Turin Olympics, as well as a Silver and Bronze medals in 2010 in Vancouver, for the 1500 metre and 3000 metre respectively, just to name a few of her accomplishments.