Designed by FreepikIT has been reported that two cases of Covid-19 were confirmed in Limerick childcare centre.In total, 19 cases of Covid-19 have been notified to authorities across Ireland.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up According to RTE.ie, the childcare centres close temporarily but some have since reopened.Early Childhood Ireland is asking for fast track testing in childcare centres to prevent the spread of cases. WATCH: “Everyone is fighting so hard to get on” – Pat Ryan on competitive camogie squads Billy Lee names strong Limerick side to take on Wicklow in crucial Division 3 clash WhatsApp Predictions on the future of learning discussed at Limerick Lifelong Learning Festival Twitter LimerickNewsCovid-19 in two Limerick childcare centresBy Staff Reporter – August 28, 2020 8047 Email Advertisement Previous articleSingle-Use Plastic Hotspots in Limerick City and CountyNext articleLimerick Post Show | August 28, 2020 Staff Reporterhttp://www.limerickpost.ie Linkedin Facebook RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Print Limerick Ladies National Football League opener to be streamed live TAGSCoronaviruscovid19Keeping Limerick PostedlimerickLimerick Post Limerick’s National Camogie League double header to be streamed live Donal Ryan names Limerick Ladies Football team for League opener
The IA has this month launched a list of “repeat offenders” to highlight the companies that receive repeated protests about the same issues.Among the “repeat offenders” are three financial services firms with asset management arms: Investec plc, Ashmore Group and a fund listed by Impax Asset Management.Ninian said: “We expect these companies to provide an update statement to their shareholders on the engagement they had since the AGM vote, the views heard from shareholders and the follow-on actions taken.”John Scott, chairman of the board of Impax Environmental Markets plc, an investment trust, said the IA’s register “brings necessary transparency to shareholder voting”.“As a board we find dialogue with the IA on governance to be beneficial, however it is not always the case that these votes are an indication of future shareholder revolt or poor corporate governance, they can also reveal the application of rigid ‘one size fits all’ proxy advice,” he said.In the investment trust’s case, Scott said the votes against the board registered by the IA related to a proxy adviser’s recommendation for shareholders to vote against the reappointment of Ernst & Young (now EY) as auditor of Impax Environmental Markets, arguing that the group was not independent.“This view was not shared by other proxy advisers and is not consistent with applicable regulations for the appointment of auditors,” Scott said. “The board has engaged with the proxy adviser on this issue and believes it has taken adequate steps to safeguard independence… The votes against and the board’s response in 2018 are a matter of public record.”The Public Register also showed that an increasing number of companies are facing shareholder opposition, with rebellions up by just under a quarter in 2018. Some 287 individual resolutions have been added to the Public Register so far in 2018, a jump of 22% from 2017.Ashmore and Investec declined to comment. The UK trade body for asset managers has warned more than 30 of the UK’s public companies – including three asset managers – about ignoring shareholder concerns.In a letter to 32 companies of all sizes listed on the London Stock Exchange, the Investment Association (IA) said it had noted these firms had been taken to task by shareholders two years running for the same issue, indicating they had failed to tackle it effectively.Andrew Ninian, director of stewardship and corporate governance at the IA, said: “While many companies are taking the necessary action and engaging with their shareholders, a frustrating number are failing to address investor concerns.”These companies appeared on the IA’s Public Register, which it launched in 2017. This register tracks FTSE All-Share companies that have received more than 20% votes against any resolution at an annual general meeting or otherwise. It also records resolutions that were pulled before a vote, potentially avoiding a revolt.
LifeSiteNews 27 April 2016Family First Comment: “It’s not just the cakes for the same-sex weddings; I haven’t singled out that one issue as something that I won’t do, I also don’t make cakes for bachelor parties. I don’t make Halloween cakes or anything involving witchcraft or demons. Sometimes it seems like I’ve turned down more cakes in a day than I’ve taken orders for.”Would the government force a Muslim baker to make a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it? Of course not, and nor should they.The Colorado Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a Christian baker accused of discrimination for declining to make a cake for a homosexual “wedding.”Attorneys for cake shop owner Jack Phillips are reviewing their options in the wake of the high court’s refusal Monday to review Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.“We asked the Colorado Supreme Court to take this case to ensure that government understands that its duty is to protect the people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco said in a statement, “not force them to violate those beliefs as the price of earning a living.”“Jack, who has happily served people of all backgrounds for years, simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message and event with which he disagrees, and that freedom shouldn’t be placed in jeopardy for anyone,” Tedesco continued. “We are evaluating all legal options to preserve this freedom for Jack.”The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ordered Jack Phillips and his staff to produce cakes for same-sex celebrations in December 2013. The commission also ordered Phillip to re-educate his staff and to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years.The order stemmed from a complaint by same-sex couple Charlie Craig and Davis Mullins alleging that Phillips discriminated against them “due to their sexual orientation” by refusing to make them a “wedding” cake.Phillips had told the men he does not create cakes for same-sex “weddings” when they made the July 2012 request in his Lakewood, CO, cake shop.“I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies,” Phillips said. “I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”Homosexual “marriage” was not yet legal in Colorado, so the men had planned to conduct their ceremony in Massachusetts and then subsequently celebrate in Colorado.After the lower court’s 2013 ruling that Phillips violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the decision in 2015.Phillips has also stated his stance is not limited to homosexual “weddings,” and that he declines to make cakes for other things that violate his religious beliefs.READ MORE: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/colorados-high-court-rejects-appeal-of-christian-ordered-to-bake-gay-weddin