SunSport readers back Dier after he confronted fan who abused his brother

first_imgSUNSPORT readers have given their backing to Eric Dier after the Tottenham star confronted a fan who abused his brother in Wednesday night’s FA Cup defeat.We asked you what you made of the Spurs star, 26, storming into the stands to support his family and you responded in your thousands.2 Fans have backed Eric Dier after he jumped into the stands to defend his brotherOf the more than 5,000 readers who cast a vote, a whopping 62.3 per cent believe Dier did the right thing.Just 19.5 per cent of fans believe he was in the wrong, with a further 18.2 per cent saying it depends on what the fan did.Dier leapt over seats as he raced to the top of the stand to confront a fan after Tottenham were knocked out of the FA Cup by Norwich on penalties.Initial reports claimed the player – who scored his penalty in the shootout – had been defending team-mate Gedson Fernandes over claims he’d been racially abused.But we can reveal the real reason behind the 40-cap England star seeing red – because he was heroically defending his younger brother, Patrick.A source revealed one fan had been shouting abuse in the direction of Dier, despite him being one of very few Spurs stars to have a decent game in North London.MAKE YOUR DEBUT Bet £5 get £20 in free bets for new customers at LadbrokesThe player’s brother, who was seated nearby, tried to calm the man down.It is believed the pair got into a heated exchange and Dier jumped into the stands to protect his sibling.It’s not clear what sparked the row and if the supporter involved is a Spurs fan.Tottenham are not expected to take any action against Dier, who could be heard shouting, “he’s my brother, he’s my brother” during the clash in one fan video.The FA are now investigating the incident and they will speak to Spurs stewards and fans nearby for their observations.2 Jose Mourinho has never won a penalty shootout in EnglandMORE SPURS STORIESHARRY ALL FOUR ITKane admits Spurs must win EIGHT games to rise into Champions League spotGossipALL GONE PETE TONGVertonghen wanted by host of Italian clubs as long Spurs spell nears endBELOW PARRSpurs suffer blow with Parrott to miss Prem restart after appendix operationPicturedSHIRT STORMNew Spurs 2020/21 home top leaked but angry fans slam silver design as ‘awful”STEP BY STEP’Jose fears for players’ welfare during restart as stars begin ‘pre-season’KAN’T HAVE THATVictor Osimhen keen on Spurs move but only if they sell Kane this summerYOU KAN DO ITKlinsmann quit Spurs to win trophies but says Kane’s better off stayingTURBULENT PAIRINGDrogba and Mido had mid-flight brawl after stewardess prank went wrongGossipSPURRED ONTottenham table contract offer for Bayern Munich’s teenage starlet Taylor BoothExclusivePASS THE TESTEngland’s NRL-based stars urge bosses to make room for a Test this yearDier is likely to face a misconduct charge for leaving the pitch area – and could be charged and fined.But the FA could be lenient towards him due to the circumstances surrounding his family and thanks to their strong anti-abuse stance.Fans had already taken to Twitter to show their “respect” to Dier for his heroic behaviour.Jose Mourinho reacts to Eric Dier incident saying he was helping his younger brother during altercationlast_img read more

At Trumps EPA oncepublic chemical safety reviews go dark

first_img Richard Denison, Environmental Defense Fund Read more… By Corbin Hiar, E&E NewsJan. 10, 2018 , 2:15 PM Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) This change dramatically limits the agency’s accountability to the public, not to mention transparency. “EPA is developing revised terminology for interim status and intends to resume updating that column once the effort is complete,” said the document.It was authored by Tanya Hodge Mottley, acting deputy director of programs in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.On 5 January, EPA quietly rolled out its changes to the chemical review tracking website. Now the interim status for more than 120 reviews that began since September 2017 is simply “focus meeting occurred,” which only indicates that EPA staff has held preliminary discussions about the new chemical or use.There were few deviations from that boilerplate designation. One chemical during that period had no interim status because it was withdrawn from consideration and a handful of others were labeled “invalid,” which could mean the chemical may not be subject to EPA review or the agency has already reviewed it.The agency did not respond to specific questions about the rationale for the apparent change. But spokesman Jahan Wilcox said, “EPA is committed to an open and transparent review of new chemicals, in accordance with the bipartisan Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act.”The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) first spotted the new pattern and is unhappy with it. “All the public knows is that a ‘Focus Meeting Occurred,'” EDF Senior Scientist Richard Denison said in a sarcastic blog post. “Gosh, that’s helpful.”Denison wrote, “This change dramatically limits the agency’s accountability to the public, not to mention transparency.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appears to no longer be releasing preliminary assessments of potentially hazardous new chemicals or new uses of existing chemicals, according to documents reviewed by E&E News.The development means the public has no way to know whether the agency has initial concerns or has granted companies preliminary authorization to begin manufacturing new chemicals or using them in novel ways.During the Obama administration, EPA would note whether new chemicals or new chemical uses were “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment. That meant companies “may commence manufacture upon notification by EPA’s Chemical Control Division by letter, notwithstanding any remaining portion of the applicable review period,” an archived page on the agency’s website says.Other interim status designations the Obama EPA assigned to new chemicals or uses indicated they were set either for “standard review,” as unable to be reviewed because of “insufficient information available” or as possibly presenting “unreasonable risk of injury.”The agency would then render a final verdict within 90 days of receiving relevant documents from companies behind the substances.Public health advocates paid particularly close attention to chemicals EPA flagged as potential concerns but later approved for manufacturing or new uses.Under Administrator Scott Pruitt, however, EPA seems to have moved to curtail public access to information about chemical reviews.A December 2017 presentation on EPA’s website shows the agency felt “previous terminology used for interim status created confusion,” so it stopped updating the online database where the public could track the status of new chemical or new use reviews. Email Carly Lesser & Art Drauglis/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0) Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe At Trump’s EPA, once-public chemical safety reviews go darklast_img read more