Steam emission over Taal’s main crater ‘steady’ for past 24 hours New Zealand’s Joseph Parker celebrates his victory over Britain’s Hughie Fury after the WBO heavyweight title bout Saturday, Sept. 23, 2017 at Manchester Arena in Manchester, England. Joseph Parker of New Zealand retained his WBO heavyweight title by beating Hughie Fury of Britain in a majority decision on Saturday. (Nick Potts/PA via AP)MANCHESTER, England — Joseph Parker prevented the Fury family from reclaiming a world heavyweight title by beating Hughie Fury by a majority decision on Saturday, with the judges rewarding the New Zealander’s attacking approach in an uneventful fight.Parker failed to land many clean punches but was never in danger against Fury, who came with a game plan of negating Parker’s power with his movement and foot speed and then counterattacking.ADVERTISEMENT Hughie was attempting to match the achievement of his cousin, Tyson, who beat Wladimir Klitschko in November 2015 to win the WBA, WBO and IBF belts. Tyson was in Hughie’s corner at Manchester Arena and leapt into the ring after the fight was over, mobbing his cousin in an attempt to convince the judges.It didn’t work. The Fury camp said it will be appealing the result.“Disgusted to be honest,” Fury said. “They’ve ruined peoples’ lives tonight. I didn’t think the score was right. I thought I won the fight easy.”Fury, who lost for the first time in 21 professional fights, is the subject of an ongoing UK Anti-Doping investigation after low-level traces of the steroid nandrolone were found in samples given by him in February 2015. He has denied any wrongdoing and is challenging their findings, leaving him free to box.Parker described Fury’s wafted punches as a “pitter-patter” and said he wasn’t hurt once. Fury landed two uppercuts but lacked power with his punches. His awkward, evasive style didn’t make for an entertaining fight in the first sporting event at the arena since the bomb attack in May.ADVERTISEMENT Jake says relationship with Shaina ‘goes beyond physical attraction’ In ‘Jojo Rabbit,’ Comedy and Drama Collide Trump’s comments on anthem, Curry resonate across sports Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. It’s too early to present Duterte’s ‘legacy’ – Lacson Two judges scored the fight 118-110 in favor of Parker. The other judge scored it 114-114.“I felt I won, put on the pressure,” Parker said. “It was a close fight, but I felt I came out on top.”FEATURED STORIESSPORTSRedemption is sweet for Ginebra, Scottie ThompsonSPORTSMayweather beats Pacquiao, Canelo for ‘Fighter of the Decade’SPORTSFederer blasts lack of communication on Australian Open smogIt was the second successful defense of his belt, leaving Parker (24-0) to look ahead to a potential fight against WBA and IBF champion Anthony Joshua. Parker’s promoter, Dave Higgins, said the fight could be arranged for the summer of 2018 at a big stadium in Britain.“I don’t care who I fight next, everyone and anyone,” said Parker, who was fighting in the UK for the first time and plans for more fights here. Margot Robbie talks about filming ‘Bombshell’s’ disturbing sexual harassment scene How to help the Taal evacuees DAY6 is for everybody OSG plea to revoke ABS-CBN franchise ‘a duplicitous move’ – Lacson Mos Burger to open in Manila; teases with a pop-up Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next SEA Games: John Marvin 1st Filipino boxer to crash out, bows to Vietnam bet PLAY LIST 04:07SEA Games: John Marvin 1st Filipino boxer to crash out, bows to Vietnam bet02:11SEA GAMES 2019: PH’s Nesthy Petecio boxing featherweight final (HIGHLIGHTS)03:47PH’s Charly Suarez boxing lightweight final (HIGHLIGHTS)02:14Carpio hits red carpet treatment for China Coast Guard02:56NCRPO pledges to donate P3.5 million to victims of Taal eruption00:56Heavy rain brings some relief in Australia02:37Calm moments allow Taal folks some respite03:23Negosyo sa Tagaytay City, bagsak sa pag-aalboroto ng Bulkang Taal01:13Christian Standhardinger wins PBA Best Player award LATEST STORIES MOST READ View comments
…reminds of Govt’s illegal status, says all decisions after Sept 19 subject to reviewFollowing Government’s announcement that it would be recalling Ambassadors from overseas who it claims have overstayed their time, former Attorney General Anil Nandlall has reminded that because of its illegal status, the Government has no authority to make such decisions.Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr Karen CummingsNandlall, when contacted, informed Guyana Times that contrary to what the Government is claiming, the Government is currently not a caretaker Government but an illegal one. He claimed that the Government was supposed to act as a caretaker Government and announce a date for elections, up until September 19.“It was a Caretaker Government from the time the No-Confidence Motion was passed, that is, from the 21st December 2018 to three months immediately succeeding that time, that is, on or about the 20th March 2019, when elections were to be held under Article 106 (6) of the Constitution.”“Then the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in its consequential orders delivered on the 12th July 2019, in the No-Confidence Motion cases, indicated that that litigation placed the constitutional clock on pause, in relation to the three months within which elections shall be held consequent upon the passage of the No-Confidence Motion, as mandated by Article 106 (6) of the Constitution.”Former Attorney General Anil NandlallNandlall referred to the CCJ’s act of referring to a three months’ grace period for Government to hold elections as “judicial benevolence”, but made it clear that the three months’ period has elapsed.“The first minute into the 19th September 2019, this Government became absolutely illegal, unconstitutional and unlawful. From that moment, it ceased to govern by virtue of constitutional authority.”“Consequently, every decision and appointment made, every contract signed and awarded and every cent of taxpayers’ dollars spent are illegal, unconstitutional and unlawful. Even monies budgeted for; they have no authority to spend because those monies were budgeted in accordance with the Constitution to be spent by a Government recognised by the Constitution.”Nandlall noted that at some point in time, all these decisions that were made including the decision to recall the unnamed Ambassadors from their overseas missions, will have to be reviewed.“This is a unit masquerading as a lawful Government and at some point in time, these decisions that are being made, contracts that are being awarded and monies that are being spent, will have to be reviewed, their legality or lack thereof examined and consequential legal actions taken,” he said.The Ministry’s announcement that it would be recalling Ambassadors follows speculation on the reason for former Director General Audrey Jardine-Waddell’s removal from the post. The Ministry confirmed that indeed, Waddell has been removed and will be replaced by Charlene Phoenix as their first Permanent Secretary, with effect from December 2.According to the Ministry, however, there are Ambassadors that have been serving for 20 years, when in fact their tenure is supposed to be 3 to 5 years. The Ministry claimed that this has impeded the work of younger, up and coming foreign service officers and that the reshuffling was part of “promoting greater efficiency”.A cursory check on the current Ambassadors’ residence overseas revealed only a few Ambassadors with over a decade of service abroad. But the Foreign Affairs Ministry has not revealed the names of those Ambassadors who were targeted.Questions have been raised as to whether there is more to the issue than the Ministry is letting on. For instance, there had been reports that Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr Karen Cummings, was being undermined at the Ministry.Those reports appeared shortly before word got out that Jardine-Waddell was being reassigned. However, it has also been alleged that the technical staff were being impeded from doing their job due to political interference.Waddell’s reassignment also comes after reports in sections of the media that her contract was not renewed by the Government. When she was asked about these claims, however, Waddell had denied knowledge of such a development.