No. 7 Kansas State blows out Kansas, 56-16

Kansas State quarterback Collin Klein (7) runs for a touchdown past Kansas safety Lubbock Smith (1) during the second half of an NCAA college football game in Manhattan, Kan., Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

Kansas State quarterback Collin Klein (7) runs for a touchdown past Kansas safety Lubbock Smith (1) during the second half of an NCAA college football game in Manhattan, Kan., Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

Kansas State quarterback Collin Klein (7) passes to a teammate during the first half of an NCAA college football game against Kansas in Manhattan, Kan., Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

Kansas State running back John Hubert (33) runs for a touchdown past Kansas defensive end Toben Opurum (35) during the first half of an NCAA college football game in Manhattan, Kan., Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

Kansas coach Charlie Weis watches from the sideline during the first half of an NCAA college football game against the Kansas State in Manhattan, Kan., Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

Kansas State coach Bill Snyder watches a replay on the scoreboard during the second half of an NCAA college football game against Kansas in Manhattan, Kan., Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

MANHATTAN, Kan. (AP) ? Bill Snyder didn't have a whole lot to say to No. 7 Kansas State at halftime on Saturday.

It wasn't because he was at a loss for material.

The Wildcats had stumbled their way through a first half in which everything went right for Kansas ? a faked field goal, a faked punt, a massive advantage in time of possession ? and yet the boys in purple were downright angry about leading the game by only a touchdown.

Snyder assumed, and rightly so, that his team could figure things out on its own.

The Wildcats came out of the locker room and scored four touchdowns in the third quarter, Collin Klein and John Hubert leading the way, and the big surge carried unbeaten Kansas State to a 56-16 victory and its fourth straight win against its biggest rival.

"I think they were angry as much as anything, which is probably the best mental approach and emotion they could have in that situation," Snyder said of the halftime mood.

"I'm not a mind-reader, but collectively I think they were angry."

They certainly took it out on the Jayhawks, too.

Hubert finished with 101 yards and four touchdowns rushing. Klein threw for 129 yards and two scores while running for 116 yards and two more touchdowns. Travis Tannahill and Tyler Lockett had the TD receptions, and Daniel Sams added 70 yards rushing when the game was out of reach.

The result was a 35-2 second half dominated by the Wildcats (5-0, 2-0 Big 12).

"It was like big play after big play," said Kansas coach Charlie Weis, who just like his three predecessors got a rude introduction to the Sunflower Showdown. "It seemed like the third quarter went on forever because they were scoring so quick."

Dayne Crist threw for 189 yards and a touchdown, but he also threw three interceptions and lost a fumble. James Sims had 115 yards rushing and a touchdown for the Jayhawks.

"It really came down to not executing," Crist said.

Kansas (1-4, 0-2) certainly executed in the first half.

It started with a time-gobbling, 86-yard drive that kept Klein and Co. on the sideline for a good chunk of the first quarter and ended with a 19-yard touchdown pass to Tony Pierson.

Kansas State answered with a 74-yard touchdown drive of its own, but the Jayhawks ? with a go-for-broke mentality ? pulled back ahead after two audacious plays on special teams.

Held to three-and-presumably-out, Weis told Ron Doherty to execute what amounted to a punter draw that went for a first down. The Jayhawks marched to the Kansas State 23 before they were held again, but this time they faked a field goal, and holder Blake Jablonski threw a pass to defensive end Toben Opurum ? a former running back ? to set up Sims' short TD run.

"It was kind of crazy there for a little bit," the Wildcats' Ty Zimmerman said.

Kansas State needed only four plays and just over a minute to answer again. Klein scooted for 27 yards and two plays later hit Lockett in stride for a 34-yard touchdown reception.

After holding Kansas to three-and-out ? this time the Jayhawks did punt ? the Wildcats needed only three plays for the fullback-like Klein to barrel into the end zone for 21-14 lead.

It looked as if Kansas State might score again just before the half when Crist was intercepted by Nigel Malone, who returned it to the Kansas 5. But Klein burned the Wildcats' last timeout with 16 seconds left, and was tackled in bounds on the ensuing play as the clock ran out.

Not that it mattered a whole lot.

The game quickly got out of hand in the third quarter.

Klein's 2-yard touchdown pass to Tannahill made it 28-14, and after Kansas managed a safety, Tre Parmelee fumbled the ensuing kickoff to give the Wildcats the ball back. Hubert made one cut and ran untouched 32 yards for another touchdown and a 35-16 lead.

Crist was picked off again on the Jayhawks' next possession and, three plays later, Hubert scored from a yard out. Klein added another touchdown run minutes later to make it 49-16.

"We made some errors and stuff that just hurts you," Klein said. "We knew they were going to come out fighting. Give them credit in their preparation, but again, I was very proud in how we responded in the second half."

The second-half scoring binge allowed Klein to spend the fourth quarter watching from the sideline, a rare luxury in a conference game. Meanwhile, Sams put Kansas State was in position to score again when time mercifully expired.

"We kept our composure, and that's what is great about this team. We don't do any name-calling or anything like that," Zimmerman said. "It was a little frustrating what they were doing on us in the first half, but in the second half we started to get some turnovers and that got us moving."

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/347875155d53465d95cec892aeb06419/Article_2012-10-06-T25-Kansas-Kansas%20St/id-c71ebca46d104d31a6eeb2dac6f74649

jessica simpson gives birth carrie underwood blown away chk ryan o neal dark knight rises trailer dark knight rises trailer vince young

If you break into a classmate's house while his family's on vacation and

[unable to retrieve full-text content]TEGA CAY, S.C. ? A Tega Cay father believes a group of students broke into his house and threw a party while his family was on vacation ? and claims he has the Facebook pictures to prove it. The 39-year-old said he didn't ...

Source: http://www.thatericalper.com/2012/10/05/if-you-break-into-a-classmates-house-while-his-familys-on-vacation-and-throw-a-drunken-party-dont-post-your-pictures-on-facebook/

marlins park marbury v. madison 2013 lincoln mkz burger king mary j blige google project glass google goggles one tree hill

Trap Heat in Your House by Slowly Running Your Ceiling Fans Clockwise [Saving Money]

Trap Heat in Your House by Slowly Running Your Ceiling Fans ClockwiseIt's starting to cool off in the United States, and that means heating bills are about to rise. Redditor kissfromarose figured out that if you run your ceiling fans clockwise (which is actually reversed) on the low setting, it'll push heat back down and keep it circulating within your home.

The Daily Green, Good Housekeeping's guide to green living, explains how to do this:

Fans today are made with a little switch that changes blade rotation. Counterclockwise produces that pleasant summer breeze we crave. Clockwise makes an updraft that sends the warmer air pooled near the ceiling back into the living space - cutting heating costs by as much as 10%.

Heat accounts for a large portion of your energy bill?the largest portion for most US households. Cutting usage by 10% means significant savings.

LPT: Make sure your ceiling fan is spinning on the low setting in reverse (clockwise) during the winter months | Reddit

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/lifehacker/full/~3/AdcwGuNYiRM/trap-heat-in-your-house-by-slowly-running-your-ceiling-fans-clockwise

yom kippur yom kippur dancing with the stars modern family george strait Lady Gaga New Girl

Why Can't You Go Space Diving Yet?

An upcoming plunge from a balloon could break the world record for skydiving. But the world may have a long wait before the age of true "space jumps."

The Red Bull Stratos "space jump" planned by Austrian skydiver Felix Baumgartner, 43, won't actually be from space. The Oct. 8 stunt takes aim at an altitude of almost 23 miles, or 120,000 feet (36 kilometers) ? well short of the altitude where space begins, 62 miles, or 327,000 feet (100 km), above Earth. Higher jumps probably would require expensive rockets and specialized space-diving suits ? not to mention a thriving commercial spaceflight industry with paying customers ? to become a reality.

The limits of current technology are being pushed by Baumgartner's planned supersonic plunge ? for instance, he will rely upon the largest balloon ever built for manned flight to carry him into the stratosphere. During his initial free fall in the near-vacuum conditions of the stratosphere, he will have relatively little control over steering and attitude.

Baumgartner will be wearing a pressure suit similar to what supersonic SR-71 Blackbird pilots once wore. At higher altitudes, however, "the suit stops needing to become a pressure suit and starts needing to become a small spacecraft," observes Jeff Feige, chief executive of spacesuit maker Orbital Outfitters.

Orbital Outfitters has worked on spacesuit designs for both NASA and commercial spaceflight companies such as SpaceX. But it also has considered suits that could work for "space-diving" from suborbital or orbital vehicles, whether for emergency escapes or for thrill seeking.

Getting the technology

Anyone trying to go higher than the Red Bull Stratos attempt would need a specialized space-diving suit that protects him or her from even more extreme conditions. Jumping from higher altitudes means reaching higher speeds during free fall in both vacuum and atmospheric conditions, and creates extra challenges for the spacesuit wearer to control descent and avoid going into a fatal spin. [Ultimate Skydiving: Falling Human to Break Sound Barrier?]

"At high altitude, you go faster and faster and faster before you hit the thickening atmosphere," Feige told TechNewsDaily. "You'll have control issues in vacuum, and then you get the atmosphere."

High-altitude space jumping also would require rockets and suborbital flight vehicles similar to the ones being built by space tourism companies such as Virgin Galactic and XCOR Aerospace, Feige said. Jumping off a fast-moving rocket ship rather than a relatively stable balloon would represent a whole new challenge for would-be space divers.

Feige likes to refer to spacesuits as integrated parts of spaceships rather than the "clothes you wear on launch day" ? his way of saying that spacesuits must be tailored to the specific characteristics of each vehicle. Space diver suits may share the same fundamental technologies but will require different characteristics for leaping from an XCOR Aerospace vehicle traveling in a parabolic curve versus one of Blue Origin's straight up, straight down flights.

A space-diving exit from a spacecraft in orbit may end up making less sense than just using entire capsules as escape pods, Feige said. But he and Orbital Outfitters still see the potential use of space-diving suits as backups for suborbital flights.

From skydiving to space jumping

If the Red Bull Stratos jump succeeds, video footage of Baumgartner free-falling in his full-body pressure suit and helmet undoubtedly will inspire people around the world. But the attempt by itself barely scratches the technological challenges of true space-diving. And a single-person stunt is a far cry from a space-diving industry.

"Everything goes slower than you want it," Feige said. "For the space-diving stuff, the business case isn't there yet, even if it's technologically achievable."

The commercial spaceflight industry remains small and relatively untested, even if it has grown through the big-dollar bets of wealthy entrepreneurs such as SpaceX's Elon Musk and Virgin Galactic's Richard Branson. Space-diving suits as emergency escape options may make business sense only after spaceflight firms have launched more than a few space tourists and astronauts on suborbital flights.

"Our fortunes wax and wane on people actually doing stuff and flying and having money to buy stuff," Feige explained. "Right now it's still a very hard and tight market."

Still, Feige pointed to the skydiving business as a possible model for space-diving. Parachute makers originally supplied parachutes as emergency equipment for military and civilian pilots, but recreational skydiving eventually spun off as its own profitable industry. Similarly, space-diving suits initially designed for astronauts or space tourists could someday spawn a recreational space jump industry for more people than just sponsored daredevils.

This story was provided by TechNewsDaily, sister site to SPACE.com. You can follow TechNewsDaily Senior Writer Jeremy Hsu on Twitter @jeremyhsu. Follow TechNewsDaily on Twitter @TechNewsDaily, or on Facebook.

Copyright 2012 SPACE.com, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/why-cant-space-diving-yet-133959736.html

missing reese witherspoon pregnant billy joel bent new york jets etch a sketch romney sean payton

Oatmeal get-up-and-go muffins

These?versatile?muffins make a quick an easy breakfast for a school day. Customize the recipe by adding your own extras, like dried fruit, nuts, blueberries, or spices.

By Perre Coleman Magness,?The Runaway Spoon / October 4, 2012

These energy-boosting muffins are perfect for breakfast. They aren't excessively sweet and pre-soaking the oats in buttermilk keeps them light and tender.

The Runaway Spoon

Enlarge

When the reality of the new school year and the end of summer hit, having a quick, portable breakfast on hand can be a serious boon. And these muffins fit the bill. I often find muffins labeled ?healthy? to be leaden gut bombs, but these are light and tender, thanks to the magic of buttermilk. Oats provide a nice, sustained energy level and soaking them in the buttermilk prevents that chewy, gritty texture you sometimes find in baked goods with oatmeal. These are not excessively sweet muffins, so no sugar crash, and the applesauce keeps the flavor up and the fat content down.

Skip to next paragraph Perre Coleman Magness

The Runaway Spoon

Perre Magness has studied food and cooking around the world, mostly by eating, but also through serious study. Coursework at Le Cordon Bleu London and intensive courses in Morocco, Thailand and France has broadened her own culinary skill and palate. The kitchen of choice is at home, cooking like most people, experimenting with unique but practical ideas.

Recent posts

' + google_ads[0].line2 + '
' + google_ads[0].line3 + '

'; } else if (google_ads.length > 1) { ad_unit += ''; } } document.getElementById("ad_unit").innerHTML += ad_unit; google_adnum += google_ads.length; return; } var google_adnum = 0; google_ad_client = "pub-6743622525202572"; google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '1'; google_feedback = "on"; google_ad_type = "text"; google_adtest = "on"; google_image_size = '230x105'; google_skip = '0'; // -->

But the real beauty of these muffins is their versatility. While delicious straight up, the recipe below is really the blueprint for your own creativity. When you stir in the applesauce, add your favorite dried fruit and/or nut combo, and any spice that tickles your fancy.

Try 1/2 cup dried cranberries and 1/2 teaspoon pumpkin pie spice. Or make that 1/4 cup cranberries and 1/4 cup chopped walnuts. Or raisins and cinnamon. Blueberries and nutmeg. Pecans and apple pie spice. I often scoop half a batch of plain batter to the tin, then add my additions to the second half.

These muffins are delicious fresh, but will last for three days in an airtight container. When they are completely cooled, wrap each one individually in plastic wrap and pop into the freezer in a zipper bag. Just pull one out the night before and you are ready to go.

And one note on the yield. I have been fiddling with this recipe for years, and I simply lack the mathematical skills to make it an even dozen. If the anomaly truly bothers you, divide the batter between all 12 cups and you?ll get smaller muffins.

Oatmeal get-up-and-go muffins

1 cup old-fashioned rolled oats
1 cup low-fat buttermilk
1 egg
1/2 cup packed light brown sugar
1 cup whole wheat flour
1 teaspoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup unsweetened apple sauce

Place the oats in a large bowl and pour over the buttermilk. Stir gently with a spoon to cover the oats, then leave to sit for one hour.

Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F. Grease 10 cups of a muffin pan.

Stir the egg and brown sugar into the oat mixture until combined. Add the flour, baking powder, baking soda and salt and stir until just barely mixed. Add the applesauce (and any add-ins*) and stir until just combined. Don?t stir too hard or too long or the muffins will be tough.

Scoop the batter into the muffin cups (I use a large cookie scoop). Bake for 12 ? 15 minutes until a tester inserted in the middle comes out clean. Cool in the pan for a few minutes, then turn out onto a wire rack to cool completely.

Yields 10 ? 11 muffins

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of food bloggers. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by The Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own and they are responsible for the content of their blogs and their recipes. All readers are free to make ingredient substitutions to satisfy their dietary preferences, including not using wine (or substituting cooking wine) when a recipe calls for it. To contact us about a blogger, click here.

Source: http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/ZCOLUFHdMlc/Oatmeal-get-up-and-go-muffins

salton sea arizona immigration law aubrey huff the killers julianne hough brandy calvin johnson

loan prospector on the web - ?????? ??????? - LiveJournal

How do you get bank loan or advance loan?

Rating Score :

A?proval : 94 %.

Get Cash in : 60 mins

Benefits : No faxing , No credit check , Fast cash ... and more !

According to your problem associated with home, employment position and earnings, it is possible to be eligible for a a loan up to $1500, even though some loan providers may give no more than $500. You will have opportunity to discover how much you be eligible for a just before accepting any kind of mortgage loan agreement.

There's an essential lawful difference from a present and also a loan. A very generous relative or perhaps friend may offer you $5000 regarding auto repairs, as an example. In the event that there's no expectation associated with payment, the money can be viewed a present. The giver couldn't sue for repayment later inside a civil suit. When the borrowed funds provider designates the amount of money just like a bank loan and also the consumer will pay back again even a buck, the bucks can be viewed a real bank loan as well as the loan company can demand repayment whenever. Small claims legal courts invest a lot of period identifying no matter whether the financial transaction including money would have been a gift as well as loan. For that reason papers is very important when designing private financial loans to buddies or even relatives.

The requirements to get that loan are quite obvious. In case you are employed, having a month to month revenue regarding $800 or maybe more, this will let you banking account, you satisfy the fundamental qualifications. Some loan providers within our network might have extra needs.

Money financial loans are unsecured financial products removed upon the next wage. Because they're short-term financial loans, they can be little; various from $100 to $1500 and payment arrives in the next payday. They could be very helpful for conquering a brief monetary unexpected emergency, yet really should not be thought to be a long-term fiscal solution.

no faxing payday loans

Most home loan programs are addressed through banking institutions or other expert lenders. They could use a variety of conditions to determine in case your possible client is qualified for a financial loan. Past credit rating is virtually always considered, along with existing revenue as well as assets. The goal of the borrowed funds can be a good issue-a established expense chance may have much more appeal as compared to a good misdirected concept for just about any new cafe. One essential point may be the profits to financial debt ratio from the client. Could the customer have the ability to pay the loan back again with interest? Skilled loan providers generally 'sell' money, so customers must be aware simply how much financing really 'costs' with regards to a real income.

Related topics:

Call Loan Definition Payday Loans 1500 Payday Loans In 15 Minutes. Select state 77443 TX

30 Day Cash Advances Reliable Online source for Fast Payday Loans. Zip or state select e.g. 66619 KS

Payday Loans 5 Minutes Get Payday Cash Loans Online. Choose your state 91603 CA

Source: http://vikcheroky.livejournal.com/198648.html

clippers lisa lampanelli lisa lampanelli bronx zoo memphis grizzlies celebrity apprentice grizzlies

Google says Motorola downsizing may be more expensive than anticipated

Android Central

Motorola has been undergoing significant "restructuring" for awhile, and Google recently said that even more than expected. Google increased the estimated cost of severance-related charges from $275 million to $300 million for the third quarter, and that another $40 million in facilities costs were possible. Google addressed these changes in a statements.

"Motorola has continued to refine its planned restructuring actions and now expects to broaden those actions to include additional geographic regions outside of the U.S. ... Motorola continues to evaluate its plans and further restructuring actions may occur, which may cause Google to incur additional restructuring charges, some of which may be significant."

Between the uphill battle of making Motorola profitable and the patent disputes that it has exposed Google to (nevermind defended them from), it's getting harder to see the $12.5 billion acquisition as a good idea. On the other hand, Motorola wasn't in particularly good shape when Google acquired it; one can only imagine how much longer Moto would have lasted on their own. 

What do you guys think: has Motorola still not had a chance to prove itself as a worthwhile investment to the Android ecosystem, or is it becoming too expensive for Google to reasonably keep around? Was the acquisition worth it for the patents alone, or are we likely to see some really excellent devices come out of Motorola with Google behind them? 

Via: Reuters

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/androidcentral/~3/6bz1rNDRkUA/story01.htm

sturgis whitney houston laid to rest daytona bike week amazing race maya angelou mary kay ash tiny houses

Robert Thomas - UK Constitutional Law Group

In June 2012, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, laid a new statement of changes in immigration rules before Parliament. There is nothing necessarily extraordinary in that; the immigration rules set out the criteria governing the entry into and removal from the UK of foreign nationals and they are frequently amended ? as a previous blog by Carol Harlow has noted ? to reflect changes in immigration policy.

However, there is something quite distinctive and significant about the June 2012 rules ? HC 194 ? namely, they seek to prescribe how judicial bodies are to interpret and apply the right to family life under Article 8 ECHR in immigration cases. The government?s aim is, essentially, to reduce the scope for foreign nationals to avoid removal from the UK on the basis that this would breach their right to family life. The machinery for administering immigration policy has been repeatedly been criticised for not being fit for purpose and also for allowing foreign nationals without any right to remain in the UK under ordinary immigration categories to use Article 8. One particularly high-profile issue has been the use of Article 8 by foreign national prisoners, which has been highlighted by the Daily Telegraph in its ?End the Human Rights Farce? campaign. Furthermore, the Coalition Government?s general policy is to reduce inward migration.

The new immigration rules raise a number of issues: (i) what exactly is being proposed and how? (ii) what Parliamentary process has been used? and (iii) how might the courts respond to the new rules?

What is being done and how?

?Article 8 is a qualified right and any interference is permissible only so long as it is proportionate and justifiable. In the immigration context, Article 8 has assumed a distinctive role as it is frequently relied upon by foreign nationals who challenge their removal. These challenges have generated an enormous volume of case-law on the legal test to be applied as regards the balance to be struck between family life on the one hand and immigration policy on the other. But, to summarise, the key issue is this: should the courts accept that in most cases the balance between family life and immigration control has been laid down in the Immigration Rules ? or should decision-makers themselves determine in each individual case where the proportionate balance lies?

In Huang, the Court of Appeal held that the Immigration Rules represented the appropriate balance between public policy and private right: individuals who did not qualify under the ordinary immigration rules would only succeed under Article 8 grounds if their case was truly exceptional. However, when the same case went to the House of Lords, it held that there was no test of exceptionality: the ultimate question is whether the refusal of leave to enter or remain, in circumstances where the life of the family cannot reasonably be expected to be enjoyed elsewhere, taking full account of all considerations weighing in favour of the refusal, prejudices the family life of the applicant in a manner sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of the fundamental right protected by article 8. There was, the House of Lords held, no reason to defer to the Immigration Rules which ?are not the product of active debate in Parliament, where non-nationals seeking leave to enter or remain are not in any event represented.?

Following Huang, then, it was for the decision-maker ? whether initially a caseworker at the UK Border Agency, an immigration judge on appeal, or a court judge by way of further appeal ? to make her own assessment as to whether or not removal would breach an individual?s right to family and private life. This test has been accepted and applied since 2007. However, the loss of control here has evidently been too much for the Coalition Government to bear ? especially when under acute media and political pressure to respond to public concern ? real or otherwise ? on immigration.

The rationale for the new rules, therefore, commences by way of critique. According to the Home Office, the Huang approach has resulted in unpredictable and inconsistent decision-making which are anathema to good administration (seasoned observers of the behaviour, action, and inaction of the UK Border Agency and its predecessors may relish the irony here: see, for instance, a special report of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen and multiple reports by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee on the UKBA?s handling of immigration applications). It has also meant that the courts do not defer to Parliament?s or the Government?s view of where the appropriate balance lies between family life and immigration control. Consequently, the solution ? so the Government says ? is to introduce new Immigration Rules to do two things: (i) to specify where the balance is to lie, that is, adopt a rules-based approach to proportionality; and (ii) to do so in a way which ensures that the new Rules have democratic legitimacy and should therefore only be subject to a light-touch judicial review.

How do the new Rules attempt to do this? By specifying the criteria to be applied in family life cases. For instance, in foreign national prisoner deportation cases, the new rules state that family or private life (including the best interests of any child, even though always a primary consideration) will not outweigh the public interest in seeing the person deported where they have received a custodial sentence of at least 4 years unless there are exceptional circumstances. This rule allows little scope for a Huang-style general balancing exercise; the main issue under the new rule is whether or not there are ?exceptional circumstances?, ie a return to the position reached by the Court of Appeal in Huang.

For those foreign national prisoners with a custodial sentence of between one and four years, the new rules introduce different requirements. Deportation will be proportionate unless they have a genuine and subsisting relationship with a partner in the UK and they have lived in the UK with valid leave continuously for at least the last 15 years and there are insurmountable obstacles to family life with that partner continuing overseas; or they have a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a British citizen child, or a foreign national child who has lived in the UK continuously for at least the last seven years immediately and it would be unreasonable to expect the child to leave the UK and there is no other family member who is able to care for the child in the UK. Alternatively, they might have lived continuously in the UK for at least the last 20 years and they have no ties (including social, cultural or family) with their home country; or they are under 25 years, have spent at least half of their life living continuously in the UK and have no ties or there are exceptional circumstances.

There are similarly complex and lengthy rules concerning the tests to be applied to other categories of person other than foreign national prisoners, such as cases concerning children and those individuals who seek to remain by virtue of their long residence in the UK. Putting the detailed rules to one side, thee general thrust is to limit and confine discretion and for the Government to give a clear policy steer to the courts as to how they should interpret Article 8. What the Government intends is for the focus of the courts to shift away from assessing the proportionality in each individual case to assessing the proportionality of the Rules themselves. As the rule embody the proportionality assessment at a general level, it is not necessary ? the Home Office says ? to re-determine it in every individual case.

What Parliamentary process has been used?

A key aspect of the Government?s plan has been to circumvent the concern expressed by the House of Lords in Huang ? that the Immigration Rules are not the product of active debate in Parliament. The new rules were debated and approved by the House of Commons.

Or were they? What actually happened on 19 June 2012 is that the Commons debated and approved a Government motion that Article 8 is a qualified right and that the criteria governing immigration are laid down in the Immigration Rules. So much is obvious to anyone with a passing acquaintance with the issues. However, some MPs at the time and, later the House of Lords Scrutiny of Secondary Legislation Committee, queried the relevance and consequences of the June debate. The Home Office?s inconsistent use of the term ?Immigration Rules? caused considerable confusion throughout the Commons? debate. One MP, for example, asked which Rules they were being asked to endorse ? the ones current on 19 June or the new version of the rules as amended by HC 194 which would come into effect on 9 July 2012 (HC Deb col 806)).

The Scrutiny Committee has doubted whether procedurally the debate delivered a sufficiently clear endorsement of the wider policy to assist the courts. Although it was the Home Office?s firm intention to provide the courts with a clear policy steer on the weight to be given to Article 8 of ECHR in relation to the Immigration Rules, it was equivocal about the procedural approach for delivering it. According to the Scrutiny Committee, while the Home Secretary?s intention is clear, questions remain about whether the Government?s approach can deliver it: the Home Office provided no evidence to support its view that the procedural approach it proposes will lead the courts to react in the way the Home Office anticipates.

Putting the formal motion to one side, the purpose of the June debate was all about sending a clear message to the courts: apply the new rules or else risk defying the Government. As Theresa May stated:

??the immigration rules will no longer be a mere starting point, with leave granted outside the rules or appeals allowed under article 8 for those who do not meet them. The immigration rules will instead take into account article 8, relevant case law and appropriate evidence and they will be proposed by the Executive and approved by the legislature. Of course, the courts have a clear constitutional role in reviewing the proportionality of measures passed by Parliament, but now the focus of the courts should be on considering the proportionality of the rules rather than the proportionality of every individual application determined in accordance with the rules. Where the courts consider individual deportation decisions, it should now be with consideration of Parliament?s public policy intent firmly in mind.? (col 763)

The Government would no doubt have been confident that it would face few problems in the Commons on the substantive issue of confining family life for, amongst others, foreign national prisoners: only a few brave MPs would take issue with that. The Labour party?s line was that the message being sent to the courts was not strong enough because the policy was only being introduced through the Immigration Rules and not through primary legislation (col 774).

How, then, might the courts respond?

It is clear that the new rules will, before long, be challenged in the courts. This might initially take a little while. A case may first be determined by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), then by the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, and perhaps ultimately Strasbourg. The Home Office, though, seems ready for it. Along with the new rules, it published a detailed statement of ECHR compatibility which, unsurprisingly, concluded that the new rules are compatible with Article 8 ECHR.

What then of the courts? Since Huang, the Supreme Court has, in a number of cases, emphasized that the fact-sensitive and judgmental nature of the proportionality assessment in immigration cases cannot be constrained by rules. In EB (Kosovo), Lord Bingham stated:

??the ? [tribunal] ? must make its own judgment and that judgment will be strongly influenced by the particular facts and circumstances of the particular case. The authority will, of course, take note of factors which have, or have not, weighed with the Strasbourg court. It will, for example, recognise that it will rarely be proportionate to uphold an order for removal of a spouse if there is a close and genuine bond with the other spouse and that spouse cannot reasonably be expected to follow the removed spouse to the country of removal, or if the effect of the order is to sever a genuine and subsisting relationship between parent and child. But cases will not ordinarily raise such stark choices, and there is in general no alternative to making a careful and informed evaluation of the facts of the particular case. The search for a hard-edged or bright-line rule to be applied to the generality of cases is incompatible with the difficult evaluative exercise which article 8 requires.?

In another Article 8 case decided at the same time as EB (Kosovo) ? Chikwamba ? Lord Scott put it more succinctly:

?policies that involve people cannot be, and should not be allowed to become, rigid inflexible rules. The bureaucracy of which Kafka wrote cannot be allowed to take root in this country and the courts must see that it does not.?

The problem with the new rules is that there will always be cases that fall on the wrong side of the rigid requirements laid down, but which a court or tribunal may nonetheless conclude deserve to be allowed because of the strength of countervailing factors. It is generally recognised in administrative law that when the decision task at hand is particularly important ? when the error costs of incorrect decisions are particularly high ? then flexibility and discretion are to be preferred to rigid rules which are over-inclusive. Also, a flexible standard as applied by a court or tribunal enables affected individuals to participate directly in the decision-making process. But, these factors have to be weighed against political forces pushing in the opposite direction.

There are a number of options for the courts. First, the courts could simply accept the new rules and apply them by recognising them as the Government?s clear wish as approved by the House of Commons. This supine posture, however, seems unlikely. The Immigration Rules are subordinate legislation and not in any way immune from judicial scrutiny. Even if the courts recognise the need for some deference, the importance of Article 8 is a major countervailing force. As the House of Lords noted in Huang:

??Human beings are social animals. They depend on others. Their family, or extended family, is the group on which many people most heavily depend, socially, emotionally and often financially. There comes a point at which, for some, prolonged and unavoidable separation from this group seriously inhibits their ability to live full and fulfilling lives.?

Secondly, the courts could go the other extreme and strike down the relevant immigration rules as incompatible with Article 8 as interpreted by the House of Lords in Huang. This is possible ? if, for instance, the courts find that the rules so restrict the proportionality assessment that they do not comprise a valid interpretation of the case-law. Judicial invalidation of the Immigration Rules is rare, but not unknown. A determined Government could in response do two things: (i) change the rules on each occasion to accommodate the flexibility required by the courts; or (ii) introduce primary legislation, but that would take up valuable legislative time.

Thirdly, the courts could take a middle path by interpreting the Rules against the general background of the Human Rights Act and hold that the new rules do not absolve the courts from applying Article 8 under the HRA. After all, what is the legal status of formal secondary rules which seek to lay down the executive?s interpretation as to how independent courts ought to assess the proportionality of decisions that infringe a qualified ECHR right? The courts could conclude that, in the human rights context, the rules are to be treated as more akin to administrative guidance ? a set of relevant considerations no doubt, but not formally binding because of overarching ECHR standards.

The scene is, then, set for a showdown ? sometime in 2013-14 I would guess. It is almost as if the Government has drawn a line in the sand and has now dared the courts to cross it. Picking an argument with the courts has, of course, long been the stock-in-trade of Home Secretaries when the normally hard-grind of government gets even tougher; former Home Secretaries such as Michael Howard and David Blunkett both had their run-ins with the courts. A cynical observer might suggest that lying beneath all the formal surface issues of the rules, Parliamentary procedure, case-law, and so on, the Government has been in search of a future blame-avoidance strategy. If the courts accept the rules, then fine, but they are rejected, then the Government can always throw any political come-back into the courts? direction. As Baroness Hale noted in Walumba Lumba, ?[t]hese are just the sort of circumstances, where both Ministers and their civil servants are under pressure to do what they may know to be wrong, in which the courts must be vigilant to ensure that their decisions are taken in accordance with the law. To borrow from the civil servants? correspondence, the courts must be prepared to take the hit even if they are not.?

Robert Thomas is Professor of Public Law at the School of Law, University of Manchester

Suggested citation: R. Thomas, ?The New Immigration Rules and the Right to Family Life? ?UK Const. L. Blog (4th October 2012) (available at http://ukconstitutionallaw.org

Source: http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/10/04/robert-thomas-the-new-immigration-rules-and-the-right-to-family-life/

temperance world bank kim kardashian flour bomb hunger games box office xavier joan crawford joan crawford

Analysis - Tough rules and tight credit may thwart housing hopes

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain needs more housing and is looking to build its way out of its worst slump since the 1930s, but a shortage of finance and grassroots resistance are proving hard to overcome.

The government and the opposition Labour Party are competing to come up with plans to unblock the financial bottlenecks holding up new construction.

Economists question their impact and some point to a much deeper problem blocking further housebuilding - the mixed feelings existing British homeowners have about it.

Although many Britons worry about slow growth and costly housing - which has led to some of the smallest newly built homes in Europe - they treasure the green space around cities and access to often overcrowded local schools and hospitals.

The views of Norman Hunt, a retired builder living in a London suburb that saw its last big wave of construction in the 1930s, are typical. "I'm not in favour of building anywhere around here, but if they did it elsewhere, and it got things moving again, then we definitely should," he said.

City limits have changed little since post-World War Two legislation encouraged municipal councils to halt expansion in favour of redeveloping Victorian-era slums and bombed-out city centres, and to use a 'green belt' to stop suburban sprawl.

This meant that unlike the United States or Spain, Britain did not see a boom in house-building before the financial crisis. Despite this, new housing starts almost halved in 2008 and have yet to significantly recover.

To change this, the Conservative-led coalition is working on proposals to rush through 10 billion pounds of construction loan guarantees and changes to planning law. And on Monday, Labour called for an expected 3-4 billion pound windfall from the sale of mobile phone airspace to be used to build 100,000 homes.

QUICK ROUTE TO GROWTH?

House building has support from many economists because it could offer a short-term boost to an economy that has not recovered the ground lost in the 2008-09 recession, and is forecast to shrink a further 0.3 percent this year.

In the last financial year, just 105,000 new homes were started in England, compared to a pre-crisis peak of 183,000, and surveys suggest house building will contract further even as other parts of the economy pick up.

Business minister Vince Cable has evoked as a promising model the construction boom that saw 300,000 houses built each year and led the way out of the 1930s depression.

Compared to other areas of government spending, economists argue that house building offers a good bang for the buck for a government constrained by a huge budget deficit. It is also faster than building infrastructure such as rail or airports.

"It's certainly first on my list on the grounds that if you want to stimulate demand and employment, then housing is something you can do very quickly," said Jonathan Portes, director of macroeconomic think tank NIESR.

The government has taken some steps to ease constraints that have made it hard for builders and home-buyers to borrow since the financial crisis. A scheme open since August offers lenders cheap finance via the Bank of England if they lend to households and businesses, with up to 60 billion pounds available for now.

A BoE survey showed banks now expect to make mortgages more widely available, though they were unsure of consumer demand. Any benefit has yet to appear in mortgage approvals figures.

While low interest rates mean the share of disposable income to service a mortgage is at a 15-year low, according to figures from lender Halifax, banks seek much larger deposits than before the crisis - a stumbling block for many first-time buyers.

The 10 billion pounds of loan guarantees, which will not come into effect before early next year, aim to reduce the cost of finance for builders and help institutional investors who want to buy portfolios of homes to rent out.

Rough calculations suggest they would add something in the region of 0.2 percent to GDP.

"I would think tens of thousands of new homes - low tens of thousands," said Henry Overman, a professor of economic geography at the London School of Economics.

PLANNING STRIFE

Richard Breen is the type of person the government hopes will build more homes. He is non-executive chairman of Horizon Homes, which has planning permission to build 60 houses outside Totnes, a small town in southwest England, and has for years has advised construction firms on how to navigate planning rules.

He identified a lack of bank finance as the most immediate constraint on builders, something he was unsure the loan guarantees would resolve. But close behind came planning laws.

"The planning process is still in the dark ages. The more effort central government make to make that easier, the harder individual planning officers dig their heels in and say they will not be dictated to," he said.

To gain approval for a development, builders have to agree with local authorities how much social housing to provide, and what they will pay towards infrastructure for the new community such as schools or community centres.

This takes time, and some deals agreed in good times look less viable now that house prices are more than 10 percent below their pre-crisis peak.

Eric Pickles, Conservative minister for local government, says this has stalled the construction of 75,000 homes, and has proposed laws to give developers more scope to appeal rulings.

But he has met fierce opposition. Local authorities say they have given permission for 400,000 homes that developers have yet to build, with some sitting there waiting for prices to rise.

"Construction could stimulate the economy if developers would get off their backsides, to be perfectly blunt," said Clyde Loakes, a Labour Party councillor and vice-chairman of the non-partisan Local Government Authority's housing committee.

Looser planning rules are not the answer, he argued. "We are the ones that ultimately will have to pick up the pieces of any poor housing developments while the developer moves on with a fast profit."

However, some analysts say a real shake up to planning is needed to permit building on green belts, which have changed little since the 1950s despite big shifts in population.

Land on the edge of London or Oxford can be 20 times more valuable with permission to build housing rather than farming.

A scheme to allow local authorities to capture a larger share of this profit could help build infrastructure and compensate locals who feel disadvantaged, said LSE's Overman.

"If we are going to tackle the house price affordability problem, we have to supply more houses," Overman said. "I don't see how some towns are meant to do it based on their urban footprint from 1947."

(Additional reporting by Peter Schwartzstein; editing by Philippa Fletcher)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/tough-rules-tight-credit-may-thwart-housing-hopes-060528194--business.html

cagayan de oro bowl schedule 2011 bowl schedule barry bonds hazing colton harris moore hurd