Latest news with #1956
The Sun
15-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Sun
How do I vote in Eurovision 2025 tonight and what time will results be revealed?
VOTING in the Eurovision Song Contest 2025 can be accomplished via a variety of handy methods. Here's everything you need to know about how to support your favourite acts, as well as when the results will be revealed. 4 Eurovision 2025 is well underway, with the song contest returning to Switzerland, where the very first of its competitions was held way back in 1956. The first semi-final of Eurovison 2025 took place on Tuesday, May 13, and the second is being held on Thursday, May 15, while the Grand Final follows on Saturday, May 17. Voting rules There are some important rules to keep in mind when voting in Eurovision 2025: You cannot vote for your own country's entry Each person is allowed to vote up to 20 times, but only once per act per voting method Voting is open to viewers in all participating countries, as well as the 'Rest of the World' — i.e. non-participating countries Only countries competing in each semi-final can vote, as well as the three pre-qualified countries (the UK, France and Germany) Votes from the Rest of the World are aggregated and count as one additional set of points. Voting windows The voting window for the remaining Eurovision 2025 semi-final opens after the last song has been performed. The voting window remains open for approximately 18 to 20 minutes, giving fans a limited time to support their favourite acts before the lines close and the results are tallied. Presenters will announce both when voting opens and closes. For the Grand Final on Saturday, 17 May 2025, voting opens just before the first song is performed and stays open until about 40 minutes after the last song finishes. If you are voting from the Rest of the World, online voting opens at midnight on the day of the final and closes when the live show begins. During the Grand Final, voting for the Rest of the World also opens just before the first song is performed, and will again remain open until approximately 40 minutes after the last song has been sung. How to vote Voting in Eurovision 2025 involves two main methods. You can vote for your favourite acts by telephone, using either a landline or a mobile phone. Another popular method is through the official Eurovision app, which is available on iOS, Android and Windows devices. In some countries voting by SMS is also possible, but not in the UK. In countries where voting my SMS is possible, the appropriate numbers will be displayed on-screen by each participating broadcaster, as well as on the official voting website — which also features a countdown to the next Eurovision broadcast. Viewers in the UK are eligible to vote in the second semi-final and the Grand Final, but were not able to in the first semi-final. Phone To vote by phone, the relevant numbers will appear on-screen. Use the long (11-digit) number for your chosen country if calling from a landline, or the short (7-digit) number if using a mobile phone. Note that shortcodes may not work in the Channel Islands or Isle of Man. App Alternatively, you can use the official Eurovision app to cast your vote. Simply download it from your device's app store, then during the show, follow the prompts to cast your vote for your favourite acts. 4 App users will receive a special thank-you message from their chosen performers, adding a nice personal touch to the experience. Results revealed As for when the results will be revealed, after voting closes (which is about 40 minutes after the final performance), the results are announced in two main stages. First, each participating country's jury points are announced by a national spokesperson. These points range from one to eight, then 10, and finally 12 points awarded to their top ten acts. After the jury points are revealed, the combined public televote from each country and the Rest of the World is announced. This televote dramatically adds to each act's total score. The winner is the act that achieves the highest combined total of jury and public points. The results are usually revealed between 11.15pm and midnight, following the conclusion of voting and the interval acts.
Times
12-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Times
The 16 best Eurovision winners — ranked
Since 1956 the Eurovision Song Contest has entertained, fascinated and amused the television viewing public with its mix of sublime and ridiculous performances from musicians and artists of every style. It has been the launchpad for serious international stars such as Abba and Celine Dion, but for many it will be their first and only chance to impress on the global stage. The secret to a Eurovision hit is not just a good song or a big name performer. With heavyweight entrants such as Cliff Richard and Engelbert Humperdinck having failed to take home the prize for the UK in the past, the contest is always hard to call. But here we are not concerned with the near misses and the also-rans (so please don't
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Nearly 70 years later, message in a bottle found in waters of Hatteras Village
HATTERAS VILLAGE, N.C. (WAVY) — You never know what you may find on a walk along the water. For a man on the Outer Banks, it went far beyond his imagination. He found a message in a bottle — a message from the past. Even better, he figured out where it came from. 1945 message in a bottle survives voyage from Little Creek to Florida Usually when 10 On Your Side visits the Outer Banks, it's to cover what Mother Nature takes away. But here in Hatteras Village, something was returned. Fortunately, Michael Garrett was walking his dog along a pond when he saw a crab with something in its claw. 'He let go of this little bottle about the size of my thumb,' Garrett said. 'And I came running over there, and I walked out on that pipe there and reached out and grabbed him and the bottle at the same time. He was a great big blue crab.' After wrestling the bottle from the crab, he discovered a small bottle with a piece of paper inside. 'And it had a date on the message — 1956,' Garrett said. 'And it had a name on it, Betsy Willis, which is my neighbor's sister.' Garrett gave it to his neighbor, who, in turn, gave it to his brother, Virgil Willis, who runs Lee Robinson's General Store, right around the corner. 'That's my sister, Betty Jean Willis,' Virgil Willis said. 'And the actual bottle was surprisingly clean. My sister said she played out here on the shore side, probably threw it in the water or a ditch.' The bottle and its contents were mailed to his sister, Betty, who now goes by Betty Willis Fisher, who lives in Jacksonville, N.C. 'I'm pretty positive we would have thrown it in the Pamlico Sound right there in Hatteras Village, right behind where the present Lee Robinson's General Store is,' Fisher said by phone from her home in Jacksonville. She was around 11 years old in 1956. 'We went down pretty much every day,' Fisher said. 'In the summertime, we go down just to cool off, lay in the water play in the water splashing around, borrow somebody's clam boat and take a little ride.' As for the bottle, no one knows how it survived its nearly-70 year journey through hurricanes and nor'easters, or how it floated back into her life, but now, she plans to hold onto it this time and keep it safe. 'Just a little treasure to leave to somebody,' she said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
IOL News
06-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Directors' personal liability for unpaid pension contributions: what employers need to know
In today's challenging economic climate, many companies face financial distress and even insolvency. However, recent legal developments make it clear that financial hardship is no excuse for failing to meet statutory obligations, particularly the obligation to pay over retirement fund contributions deducted from employees' salaries. This was the view of the Western Cape Division High Court in Engineering Industries Pension Fund v Installair (Pty) Ltd and Others (1633/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 8 (16 January 2025), which confirmed that financial distress cannot shield employers from the consequences of non-compliance. This case underscores the legal duty of employers to comply with retirement fund obligations, and it highlights the potential for directors to be held personally liable for non-compliance. Legal framework The Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 (the PFA) aims to protect the retirement savings and financial security of members by ensuring that contributions are properly deducted, managed, and remitted to the relevant fund. It sets out clear employer obligations, including the timely and full payment of contributions, and holds directors personally liable in cases of non-compliance. This reinforces trust in the retirement system and ensures that employee benefits are protected, regardless of an employer's financial challenges. Section 13A of the PFA plays a critical role in ensuring compliance. Section 13A(1) requires employers to pay both employee and employer contributions in full and on time. It also obliges the principal officer of the fund to report instances of non-payment to the board. Where an employer fails to comply, directors may be held personally liable. Accordingly, section 13A of the PFA and its subsections provide clear guidance on the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of effective compliance in respect of pension fund contributions. Furthermore, the section creates a robust enforcement mechanism to ensure that financial distress cannot be used as a justification for withholding retirement fund contributions. Case background In brief, the facts of this case are that the Engineering Industries Pension Fund (the Fund) sought to recover outstanding pension and provident fund contributions from Installair (Pty) Ltd (the Company) for the period May 2020 to July 2020. In addition, the Fund sought to hold the Company's directors personally liable for the unpaid contributions. The Fund relied on the provisions of: section 13A(1), which mandates employers to pay both employee and employer contributions to the retirement fund in full and on time; section 13A(7) which provides for the personal liability of individuals responsible for ensuring the employer's compliance with its obligations; section 13A(8), which imposes personal liability on directors who are regularly involved in the management of the employer's financial affairs; and section 13A(9), which requires retirement funds to notify employers in writing of individuals who may be held personally liable, read with Regulation 33 (promulgated under the PFA but since repealed). At the time of the application, the Company was in liquidation, and no relief was sought against it. Instead, the Fund pursued relief against the Company's directors. The directors acknowledged that during the relevant period, the Company had deducted pension and provident fund contributions from employees' salaries but failed to remit them to the Fund. Instead, the amounts deducted were used to subsidise employee salaries, due to the Company's financial distress. The directors argued that the failure to pay was due to circumstances beyond their control and contended that they had not acted recklessly or negligently. One director also claimed that section 13A(8) of the PFA should not apply to her, as she was not involved in the financial affairs of the Company. The directors further argued that liability under section 13(8) arises only where directors are unable to meet statutory obligations due to circumstances within their control and where there has been reckless or negligent conduct, which they denied. The Court found that the directors were actively involved in managing the Company's financial affairs and had clearly failed to meet their statutory obligations under the PFA. The defences advanced were described as "far-fetched" and "untenable" and were summarily rejected. The Court accordingly held the directors personally liable for the unpaid contributions, ordering them to pay the outstanding amounts, together with accrued interest. The Court also dismissed the argument that the Covid-19 pandemic justified the employer's failure to remit contributions. Notably, the period in question (January to March 2020) preceded the national lockdown, which was only imposed on 26 March 2020. As the Company was fully operational during this time, the pandemic could not be used as an excuse for non-compliance. With no valid defence presented, the Court held the directors liable for the outstanding pension contributions. The Court also emphasised that a failure to issue an order in favour of vulnerable groups would constitute a dereliction of its constitutional duty. The Court noted that the rise in withdrawal claims under the two-pot retirement system has highlighted persistent non-compliance with pension contribution obligations, a trend that threatens the financial security of retirees. This case serves as a strong reminder that enforcement of pension fund compliance is not only a legal obligation but a moral imperative to protect employee's long-term financial interests. Obiter findings of the Court In Engineering Industries Pension Fund v Installair (Pty) Ltd supra, prior to delivering its findings on the directors' liability, the Western Cape High Court highlighted the inherent challenges introduced by the two-pot retirement system and the practical implications of employers failing to remit pension contributions. The Court noted that such non-compliance has "cast a long shadow over this approach". The surge in withdrawal claims under the two-pot system has not only exposed serious gaps in employer compliance but also demonstrated that retirees, and those anticipating access to their retirement benefits ultimately bear the brunt of employer default. The 'two pot impact' in this context refers to the dual consequences of non-compliance with pension fund contribution obligations. Firstly, when employers fail to remit the deducted contributions, the intended 'pot' of funds meant to safeguard employees' future financial security is compromised. This undermines retirement savings, reduces expected benefits, and erodes trust in the pension system. Secondly, the case reinforces that directors who are actively involved in a company's financial affairs cannot rely on financial distress as a defence. The law imposes personal liability for non-remittance of contributions, holding directors directly accountable, exposing them to financial, reputational, and legal consequences. Engineering Industries Pension Fund v Installair (Pty) Ltd is not the only case in which the Courts have taken a firm view on unpaid retirement fund contributions. In Mafoko Security Patrols Pty Ltd v Kheledi and Others (2023/036840; 2023/057409; 2023/085922; 2023/086107) [2025] ZAGPJHC 252 (7 March 2025), where the employer blatantly ignored the Pension Fund Adjudicator's determinations to pay outstanding pension contributions, the Court upheld the Adjudicator's orders, confirming that the workers were entitled to the unpaid contributions and awarding costs. Furthermore, in National Fund for Municipal Workers v Tswaing Local Municipality & Another [PFA25/2020] (19 August 2020), the Financial Services Tribunal found that while section 13A of the PFA does provide for personal liability where contributions are unpaid, this liability is not primary, the employer remains primarily liable for the outstanding contributions. Key takeaways for employers and retirement funds In conclusion, employers, and particularly retirement funds, are urged to implement robust financial controls and regularly review compliance policies to ensure that all pension contributions are paid promptly and accurately, in accordance with the PFA and the rules of the relevant fund. This will go a long way in shielding directors and companies from severe legal penalties and reputational harm. It bears emphasising that even in the face of financial difficulty, diverting retirement fund contributions for other uses is strictly prohibited. Directors cannot rely on financial distress as a defence to escape personal liability for unpaid contributions. These cases underscore a crucial legal principle: employers cannot avoid their pension obligations through delay tactics or legal posturing. The courts have made it clear that accountability in fulfilling statutory duties is non-negotiable. Companies that ignore these obligations do so at their peril. * Van Vuuren is a partner and Tshshonga is a trainee attorney at Webber Wentzel. PERSONAL FINANCE
The Star
22-04-2025
- Health
- The Star
Influencers and celebrities, beware of promoting health products!
The rapid growth of the internet and the evolution of digital marketing have significantly transformed the landscape of health product sales. Nowadays, consumers have unprecedented access to a vast array of health products through e-commerce platforms, social media and influencer-driven marketing. With this increased accessibility, consumers are often drawn to health products that are promoted as products that enhance overall well-being. However, the growing online market also raises concerns about product authenticity, safety and regulatory compliance, making it crucial for consumers to make well-informed decisions. Current marketing trends Health products, particularly supplements, come in various forms, including capsules, tablets, powders and liquids; however, they do not include injections or eye drops. Supplements may contain essential nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, amino acids and fatty acids, along with natural ingredients derived from plants, animals or minerals. These natural components are often found in the form of extracts or concentrates. In some cases, they may also include synthetic ingredients, provided that their safety has been scientifically validated. As the demand for supplements continues to grow, marketing strategies have evolved beyond traditional advertising, with social media influencers and celebrities playing an increasingly pivotal role in this evolving landscape. They often leverage their large follower base to promote health products with claims that closely resemble pharmaceutical treatments. The effectiveness of influencer marketing lies in the personal connection these individuals establish with their audience, fostering a sense of trust and authenticity that traditional advertisements often lack. However, while influencers may excel at engaging audiences, they are usually unlikely to possess the knowledge needed to assess the safety and quality of the products they promote. This raises growing concerns about the potential spread of misinformation and the endorse-ment of unregulated, or even harmful, health products, posing potential health risks to the public. Strict regulation In Malaysia, advertisements are broadly and comprehensively defined under the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Act (MASA) 1956. Advertisements cover any form of communication intended to promote a product, service or idea, whether in written, verbal or visual form. These include notices, circulars, reports, commentaries, brochures, labels, packaging, and even verbal announcements or digital content that transmit light or sound. In today's digital age, the definition also applies to social media posts, product reviews, testimonials and professional endorsements, regardless of the platform. The regulation of health product advertising is primarily governed by the MASA 1956 and other supporting guidelines designed to safeguard public health. The main objective of these regulations is to ensure that health product advertisements are truthful, not misleading, and compliant with legal and ethical standards. As part of these regulations, controlled medicines, such as antibiotics, high blood pressure drugs, diabetic drugs, cancer drugs and many others, cannot be advertised to the public. In contrast, registered health products are permitted to be advertised, but require prior approval from the Medicine Advertisements Board (MAB). MAB is the regulatory body overseeing health product advertisements. Guidelines for influencers Many influencers and companies – knowingly or unknowingly – promote health products illegally, often making exaggerated claims without scientific validation. Recognising the significant impact of celebrities and social media personalities, the Health Ministry has introduced specific guidelines to regulate their role in health product advertising. The Panduan kepada Selebriti dalam Pengiklanan Produk Kesihatan (Guidelines for Celebrities in Advertising Health Products) outlines the responsibilities of influencers and public figures when advertising health-related products. Any product they promote must be registered with the Health Ministry. Celebrities or influencers should ensure that the product holder has obtained approval from the MAB for all promotional materials, including scripts, videos and advertisements. Unscripted or spontaneous promotions, including testimonials, are strictly prohibited and considered illegal. Additionally, they are prohibited from associating any product with sunnah food or related elements, as this directly contradicts the guidelines by the Islamic Development Department (better known by its Malay acronym Jakim). They should also comply with the Consumer Protection Act 1999, which prohibits false or misleading statements about a product's safety, efficacy or approval status. Celebrities and influencers who violate the advertising regulations outlined in the MASA 1956 can face legal consequences. Under Section 5 of the Act, individuals found guilty of advertising offences may face substantial penalties. For a first offence, violators can be fined up to RM3,000 or imprisoned for up to one year, or both. Repeat offenders can be fined up to RM5,000 or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. These penalties are not limited to product manufacturers or distributors. They extend to all parties involved in the advertisement process, including influencers, brand ambassadors, media outlets, advertising agencies, and even event hosts associated with the promotional campaign. Protect yourself Influencers and celebrities are strongly encouraged to conduct thorough background checks on companies before advertising their products. This includes reviewing the company's legal history to determine whether it has previously been implicated in regulatory violations. Additionally, they should monitor the official websites and social media platforms of the brands they represent to ensure no misleading advertisements are published under their name. By taking these precautions, influencers and celebrities can protect themselves from legal consequences and uphold ethical standards in health product advertising. Apart from influencers and celebrities, many individuals promote health products through direct selling and multi-level marketing (MLM). While these ventures can be profitable, sellers must exercise caution when advertising health-related products. They must ensure that the products they promote are registered with the Health Ministry and comply with all relevant health and advertising regulations. For any inquiries regarding medicines, please call the National Pharmacy Call Centre (NPCC) at the toll-free number 1-800-88-6722 during weekdays from 8am to 5pm, except on public holidays. Tan Zhi Shan Sujata is a pharmacist with the Labuan Health Department's Pharmacy Enforcement Subdivision. This article is courtesy of the Health Ministry's Pharmacy Practice and Development Division. For more information, email starhealth@ The information provided is for educational and communication purposes only, and should not be considered as medical advice. The Star does not give any warranty on accuracy, completeness, functionality, usefulness or other assurances as to the content appearing in this article. The Star disclaims all responsibility for any losses, damage to property or personal injury suffered directly or indirectly from reliance on such information.
