Latest news with #Merton


Sunday World
2 days ago
- Sunday World
Man admits charges after €300k of cannabis found in utility room
Ross Merton (29) was charged after gardaí found the drug along with €1,500 in crime proceeds in a raid earlier this year A Dublin man has admitted drugs and money laundering charges following the seizure of an estimated €300,000 worth of cannabis in his apartment's utility room. Ross Merton (29) was charged after gardaí found the drug along with €1,500 in crime proceeds in a raid earlier this year. He signed guilty pleas when he appeared in Dublin District Court. Judge Michele Finan sent him forward for sentence to Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. Merton, of Beech House, The Avenue, Kilternan Wood, Dublin 18 is charged with possession of cannabis with intent to sell or supply, and money laundering. A prosecuting solicitor said the accused was being returned to the circuit court on signed pleas of guilty. Merton acknowledged his signature and that he understood what this meant, before the judge remanded him on continuing bail. At a bail application in January, the court heard Merton was 'caught red handed' taking part in the storage and supply of drugs. Garda Emma Young, of the Dublin Crime Response Team, said when the address was searched, cannabis was found in a utility room. The accused was not present at the time but returned and made admissions. He had received the drugs in a suitcase, stored it in his apartment and was to be later paid €1,000, the garda said. The court heard a sum of €1,500 in cash was also seized. Gardaí had objected to bail in that initial hearing, but Judge Finan granted it with a €30,000 independent surety and subject to conditions. Ross Merton News in 90 Seconds - Tuesday, July 29


Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
Why so many older women suffer the agony of burning mouth syndrome: DR MARTIN SCURR reveals the likely causes – and how you can treat it
I've been diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome and it's extremely painful (it was caused by my ulcerative colitis). I've been put on gabapentin, but is this likely to help? Audrey Boyson, Merton.


Forbes
09-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Campaigners Hope Wimbledon Expansion Plans Are Called Out In Court
Spectators walk past proposals for expansion of the club during day five of Wimbledon 2021 at the ... More All England Lawn Tennis Club on July 2nd 2021 in London (Photo by) As Great Britain's Cameron Norrie took on the role of hapless underdog against the heavy favorite Carlos Alcaraz on Centre Court on Tuesday, another David and Goliath battle was taking place in the High Court. A group of 100 or so campaigners from the Save Wimbledon Park group made their presence felt outside legal chambers in London to protest against the All England Club's £200 million ($270m) expansion plans for the Wimbledon site. The campaigners have raised over £200,000 ( $253k) to bring a judicial review of the Greater London Authority's decision to rubberstamp AELTC's plans to build 39 courts, including an 8,000-seater show court. The hearing takes places on July 8 and July 9, just as the business end of the Championships comes to its climax. The last four days of the tournament are taking place in temperatures touching 30 degrees as the latest stage of the battle over the expansion heats up in the Courts. Most of the park lies within Merton, but a small triangle falls into neighboring borough Wandsworth, which rejected the Wimbledon expansion. This meant the umpire's chair on decision-making went to the deputy mayor. The plan was given the go-ahead last September when Jules Pipe pronounced it would bring 'significant benefits.' Although the GLA acknowledged there would be harm to open metropolitan land and a loss of green space, the estimated $450 million in annual and economic benefits, mostly centered within London, was a huge factor in pushing it through. Save Wimbledon Park's challenge is not based around the permission of the project, but rather focuses on 'errors of law and planning policy' in giving it approval. Metropolitan open land is subject to the same protection as green belt. Campaigners argue that to give the green light would pave the way for more private commercial developments to trample over other vulnerable spaces. The sitting judge will also make a decision on whether neglect of the Grade II* registered Park and Garden, a significant heritage site, should have been considered when making the planning decision. It will evaluate whether the proposed private tennis development falls short in offering an 'alternative sports and recreational' space for public use. The AELTC originally submitted the plans in 2021, having finalized the purchase of the £65,000 ($80k) leasehold of the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club which was the key piece of land to expand on. Wimbledon is currently a 42-acre site but aims to almost triple in size to 117. This will encompass an increased ground capacity to 50,000 to bring the qualifying - currently played in Roehampton Community Sports Centre three miles away - onsite to give the tournament continuity and quality in terms of player and spectator experience. The U.S. Open, the French Open and the Australian Open all have qualifying within the same complex. The All England Club has always maintained that the greater benefits of the project outweigh the environmental impacts. The club has held numerous walkthroughs of the site with the general public and maintain feedback from forums have been hugely positive about the prospect of a new accessible boardwalk around Wimbledon Park Lake, and community use of the proposed new courts and facilities. AELTC's Corporate Affairs Lead Dominic Foster reiterated what he told me last year: 'Our plans to transform what has been a private members golf course for more than 100 years will maintain Wimbledon's position at the pinnacle of sport and create year round benefits for local people. The proposals will deliver very significant biodiversity benefits which are endorsed by the London Wildlife Trust.' During the first week of Wimbledon, campaigners were handing out leaflets that were entitled 'Love Tennis. Hate Concrete'. SWP claim that the entire area of expansion would be heavily excavated, leading to a 36 per cent loss of biodiversity, a destruction of wildlife and air pollution from construction lorries. The project has a completion date of 2033 at the latest. 'You could not have a more protected piece of land in London,' said Sascha White KC, representing Save Wimbledon Park in the judicial review. When it acquired the freehold of the 18-hole golf course in 1993, the AELTC entered into an agreement with Merton Council 'preventing the use of the land otherwise than for leisure or recreation purposes or as an open space.' SWP believe that the land should be held in some kind of public trust 'requiring it to be kept available for (public) recreational use' in line with the whole of the park and lake. A woman walks past a banner protesting the proposed expansion of the Wimbledon grounds on day one of ... More the 2024 Wimbledon Championships at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, London. Picture date: Monday July 1, 2024. (Photo by Jordan Pettitt/PA Images via Getty Images) Russell Harris KC, representing the All England Club, countered by arguing that planning officers acknowledged the trust and covenants, but decided they were not material to the application. He said the GLA could legally grant permission 'even if the development is incompatible with a different, non-planning restriction on the use of the land.' A written decision is expected in the next fortnight as this latest saga on Wimbledon's expansion moves towards match point or a tiebreak. If SWP's action is successful on any of its main points, the planning application will be sent back for reconsideration. The AELTC are quietly confident while SWP hope to stop the 'huge industrial tennis complex' steamrollering their concerns. Norrie might know how that feels after being blasted off court by Alcaraz.


Forbes
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Campaign Group Hopes Wimbledon Expansion Plans Are Called Out
As Great Britain's Cameron Norrie prepared to be a huge underdog against the heavy favorite Carlos Alcaraz on Centre Court today, a group of 100 or so campaigners from the Save Wimbledon Park group made their presence felt outside the High Court in London to protest against the All England Club's $270 million expansion plans for the Wimbled site. The campaigners have raised over £200,000 ( $253,000) to bring a judicial review of t of The Greater London Authority's decision to rubberstamp AELTC plans to build 39 courts, including an 8,000 seater show court. The hearing takes places on July 8 and 9, just as the business end of the Championships begins to take shape. The last four days of the tournament are taking place in temperatures touching 30 degrees as the latest stage of the battle over the expansion heat up in the Royal Courts of Justice. Most of the park lies within Merton but a small triangle falls into neighboring borough Wandsworth whose councillors rejected the expansion plans. This meant the umpire's chair on decision-making was referred to the London mayoral office. The plan was given the go-ahead by the Greater London Authority last September (GLA) whose deputy major, Jules Pipe, pronounced it would bring 'significant benefits.' Although the GLA acknowledged there would be harm to open metropolitan land and a loss of green space, the estimated $450 million in annual and economic benefits, mostly centred within London, was a huge factor in pushing it through. Save Wimbledon Park's challenge is not based around the permission of the project, but rather centers on 'errors of law and planning policy' in giving it approval. Metropolitan open land is subject to the same protection as green belt and campaigners argue that to give the green light would pave the way for more private commercial developments to trample over other vulnerable spaces. The sitting judge will also make a decision on whether neglect of the Grade II* registered Park and Garden, a significant heritage site, should have been considered when making the planning decision. It will evaluate whether the proposed private tennis development falls short in offering an 'alternative sports and recreational' space for public use. The AELTC originally submitted the plans in 2021, having finalizing the purchase of the $80,000 leasehold of the former Wimbledon Park Golf Club. It aims to increase ground capacity to 50,000 and bring the qualifying week (currently played at a leased ground in Roehampton three miles away) onsite to give the tournament continuity and quality in terms of player and spectator experience for the whole three weeks. Wimbledon is the only major that doesn't hold qualifying within the same complex. The All England Club has always maintained that the greater benefits of the project outweigh the environmental impacts. The club has held numerous walkthroughs of the site with the general public and maintain feedback from forums have been hugely positive about the prospect of a new accessible boardwalk around Wimbledon Park Lake, and community use of the proposed new courts and facilities. Speaking to me about the overall picture, Corporate Communications Director of the AELTC Dominic Foster reiterated what he told me last year: 'Our plans to transform what has been a private members golf course for more than 100 years will maintain Wimbledon's position at the pinnacle of sport and create year round benefits for local people. The proposals will deliver very significant biodiversity benefits which are endorsed by the London Wildlife Trust.' During the first week of Wimbledon, campaigners were handing out leaflets that were entitled 'Love Tennis. Hate Concrete'. SWP claim that the entire area of expansion would be heavily excavated, leading to a 36 per cent loss of biodiversity, a destruction of wildlife and air pollution from construction lorries. 'You could not have a more protected piece of land in London,' said Sascha White KC, representing Save Wimbledon Park. When it acquired the freehold of Wimbledon Park Golf Course in 1993, the AELTC entered into an agreement with Merton Council 'preventing the use of the land otherwise than for leisure or recreation purposes or as an open space.' SWP believe that the land should be held in some kind of public trust 'requiring it to be kept available for (public) recreational use' in line with the whole of the Park and lake Russell Harris KC, representing the All England Club, countered by arguing that planning officers acknowledged the trust and covenants, but decided they were not material to the application. He said the GLA could legally grant permission "even if the development is incompatible with a different, non-planning restriction on the use of the land". A written decision on is expected some time in the next few weeks as this latest saga on Wimbledon's expansion moves towards match point or a deadlock. If SWP's action is successful on any of its main points, the planning application will be sent back for reconsideration. The campaign has called it a 'David and Goliath' battle. Alcaraz was the giant on the tennis court today with Norrie resigned to his fate. The AELTC are confident of victory but Save Wimbledon Park.
Yahoo
08-07-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Scientific norms shape the behavior of researchers working for the greater good
Over the past 400 years or so, a set of mostly unwritten guidelines has evolved for how science should be properly done. The assumption in the research community is that science advances most effectively when scientists conduct themselves in certain ways. The first person to write down these attitudes and behaviors was Robert Merton, in 1942. The founder of the sociology of science laid out what he called the 'ethos of science,' a set of 'values and norms which is held to be binding on the man of science.' (Yes, it's sexist wording. Yes, it was the 1940s.) These now are referred to as scientific norms. The point of these norms is that scientists should behave in ways that improve the collective advancement of knowledge. If you're a cynic, you might be rolling your eyes at such a Pollyannaish ideal. But corny expectations keep the world functioning. Think: Be kind, clean up your mess, return the shopping cart to the cart corral. I'm a physical geographer who realized long ago that students are taught biology in biology classes and chemistry in chemistry classes, but rarely are they taught about the overarching concepts of science itself. So I wrote a book called 'The Scientific Endeavor,' laying out what scientists and other educated people should know about science itself. Scientists in training are expected to learn the big picture of science after years of observing their mentors, but that doesn't always happen. And understanding what drives scientists can help nonscientists better understand research findings. These scientific norms are a big part of the scientific endeavor. Here are Merton's original four, along with a couple I think are worth adding to the list: Scientific knowledge is for everyone – it's universal – and not the domain of an individual or group. In other words, a scientific claim must be judged on its merits, not the person making it. Characteristics like a scientist's nationality, gender or favorite sports team should not affect how their work is judged. Also, the past record of a scientist shouldn't influence how you judge whatever claim they're currently making. For instance, Nobel Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling was not able to convince most scientists that large doses of vitamin C are medically beneficial; his evidence didn't sufficiently support his claim. In practice, it's hard to judge contradictory claims fairly when they come from a 'big name' in the field versus an unknown researcher without a reputation. It is, however, easy to point out such breaches of universalism when others let scientific fame sway their opinion one way or another about new work. Communism in science is the idea that scientific knowledge is the property of everyone and must be shared. Jonas Salk, who led the research that resulted in the polio vaccine, provides a classic example of this scientific norm. He published the work and did not patent the vaccine so that it could be freely produced at low cost. When scientific research doesn't have direct commercial application, communism is easy to practice. When money is involved, however, things get complicated. Many scientists work for corporations, and they might not publish their findings in order to keep them away from competitors. The same goes for military research and cybersecurity, where publishing findings could help the bad guys. Disinterestedness refers to the expectation that scientists pursue their work mainly for the advancement of knowledge, not to advance an agenda or get rich. The expectation is that a researcher will share the results of their work, regardless of a finding's implications for their career or economic bottom line. Research on politically hot topics, like vaccine safety, is where it can be tricky to remain disinterested. Imagine a scientist who is strongly pro-vaccine. If their vaccine research results suggest serious danger to children, the scientist is still obligated to share these findings. Likewise, if a scientist has invested in a company selling a drug, and the scientist's research shows that the drug is dangerous, they are morally compelled to publish the work even if that would hurt their income. In addition, when publishing research, scientists are required to disclose any conflicts of interest related to the work. This step informs others that they may want to be more skeptical in evaluating the work, in case self-interest won out over disinterest. Disinterestedness also applies to journal editors, who are obligated to decide whether to publish research based on the science, not the political or economic implications. Merton's last norm is organized skepticism. Skepticism does not mean rejecting ideas because you don't like them. To be skeptical in science is to be highly critical and look for weaknesses in a piece of research. This concept is formalized in the peer review process. When a scientist submits an article to a journal, the editor sends it to two or three scientists familiar with the topic and methods used. They read it carefully and point out any problems they find. The editor then uses the reviewer reports to decide whether to accept as is, reject outright or request revisions. If the decision is revise, the author then makes each change or tries to convince the editor that the reviewer is wrong. Peer review is not perfect and doesn't always catch bad research, but in most cases it improves the work, and science benefits. Traditionally, results weren't made public until after peer review, but that practice has weakened in recent years with the rise of preprints, reducing the reliability of information for nonscientists. I'm adding two norms to Merton's list. The first is integrity. It's so fundamental to good science that it almost seems unnecessary to mention. But I think it's justified since cheating, stealing and lazy scientists are getting plenty of attention these days. The second is humility. You may have made a contribution to our understanding of cell division, but don't tell us that you cured cancer. You may be a leader in quantum mechanics research, but that doesn't make you an authority on climate change. Scientific norms are guidelines for how scientists are expected to behave. A researcher who violates one of these norms won't be carted off to jail or fined an exorbitant fee. But when a norm is not followed, scientists must be prepared to justify their reasons, both to themselves and to others. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jeffrey A. Lee, Texas Tech University Read more: Science activism is surging – which marks a culture shift among scientists Rogue science strikes again: The case of the first gene-edited babies Intellectual humility is a key ingredient for scientific progress Jeffrey A. Lee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.