6 6 6 Jose Mourinho has won the Premier League for the third time in what is his second spell in charge of Chelsea.But does winning the league in such a comfortable manner mean he is an automatic choice for Manager of the Year?Some may argue that, should Nigel Pearson keep Leicester up, he should be given the honour or Ronald Koeman for his work at Southampton when nobody gave them hope of staying up.Here, talkSPORT looks at the contenders for the top award, so let us know who you think should win it. 5. Mark Hughes: Stoke manager who has spent little but looking to finish in the top 10 – Hughes’ reputation took a battering when he was at QPR, but he has done his job quietly and effectively at Stoke. Of the Premier League clubs last summer they spent the least and a top 10 finish is likely. 6 3. Ronald Koeman: Southampton manager who has defied expectations and spent a great deal of time in the Premier League top four – Before the start of the season a lot of fans outside of St Mary’s tipped Southampton for relegation given that Luke Shaw, Adam Lallana and Rickie Lambert were among the players sold for big money, while manager Mauricio Pochettino left for the Tottenham job. However, the club have bought well and Koeman has overseen a strong campaign where the club, as late as March, were still in the Premier League top four. A very impressive season. 6. Jose Mourinho: Chelsea manager and Premier League champion – His Chelsea team were ruthless this season as they marched their way to the title, having spent most of the campaign at the top of the table. Amazingly, Mourinho has not won a Manager of the Month award. Defender Branislav Ivanovic told the London Evening Standard: I dont know how that [not winning Manager of the Month] happened. But it doesnt matter if he won one or not, for sure he is the best manager this season. 1. Nigel Pearson: Leicester City manager who may be about to pull off a great escape – Who deserves the Premier League’s Manager of the Season when the LMA’s annual award is given out at the end of May? Here, talkSPORT looks at the contenders, one of which must be Leicester boss, Pearson. He was presented with the monthly gong in April following four straight victories against West Ham, West Brom, Swansea and Burnley and now the Foxes are on course to avoid relegation when two months ago they looked certain for the drop. 4. Garry Monk: Swansea manager who has broken the club’s record points total and still chasing European football – Swansea lost main goal threat Wilfried Bony in January, but that has not affected them and under Monk the football has been very easy on the eye, with Bafetimbi Gomis popping up with important goals. In addition they have not spent a lot of money, but recruited wisely and the Welsh club are still in the hunt to qualify for the Europa League via their league finish. They are also only the third team in Premier League history to win both home and away against Arsenal, following Man United, West Ham and Chelsea. 6 2. Louis van Gaal: Man United manager who is slowly restoring pride at Old Trafford – Van Gaal took over at Man United following a poor season under David Moyes while his reign also started slightly later as a result of the Netherlands’ World Cup campaign where Van Gaal was in charge of his national team. There was no European football for United this term, but the Dutchman has managed to steady the Old Trafford ship and in his debut season has guided the club back into the Champions League. With a full pre-season and the right players being bought should make them contenders next year. 6
AN astonishing 90% of Donegal households still haven’t paid the €100 household charge – even though there’s just two weeks left to the deadline.And the County Council, tasked with collecting the money by the Government, is warning that homeowners will NOT get a bill.One well-known Co Donegal solicitor told donegaldaily.com that this method of collecting payment “may not be sound in law.” He added: “The Government is relying on media publicity to get this message out and in many circumstances there will be people who do not know about it and if they do not know about it, they cannot pay it.“There may well be a legal loophole left in this. Time will tell.”Just 14% of people nationwide have so far paid up.Meanwhile those opposed to the tax, water taxes and septic tank taxes have erected a “Greedy Pigs” sign on the road from Gaoth Dobhair to Dunlewey. CAN’T PAY, COULDN’T BE BOTHERED TO PAY! DONEGAL SNUB TO HOUSEHOLD CHARGE was last modified: March 14th, 2012 by BrendaShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:CAN’T PAYCOULDN’T BE BOTHERED TO PAY! DONEGAL SNUB TO HOUSEHOLD CHARGE
Touted as an evolutionary explanation for bird egg shapes, a new hypothesis celebrating natural selection falls like Humpty Dumpty under a gentle breeze of questioning.I think that, if required on pain of death to name instantly the most perfect thing in the universe, I should risk my fate on a bird’s egg. —Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1862Natural selection is the hero of a paper in Science Magazine about bird eggs, and Phys.org was sure to make that clear in its write-up. “How eggs got their shapes: Adaptations for flight may have driven egg-shape variety in birds,” the bold headline announces. Read further in this article classified under evolution, and you see that a Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology from Harvard used an evolutionary framework to determine the “implications of egg shape in an evolutionary and ecological setting.” This egg story is drenched in evolutionary seasoning, to make sure the reader won’t miss the taste.And if that isn’t enough evolutionary flavor, Claire N. Spottiswoode in Science Magazine marinates the egg story in Darwin’s special brand Natural Selection Sauce. She says,The selection pressure that best explains its evolution comes from the characteristic we most associate with birds: flight.This hypothesis predicts that species under strong selection for flight-related adaptations—such as migrants and aerial insectivores—should have elliptical or asymmetric rather than spherical eggs.The authors use an index of aerodynamic wing shape as a proxy for such selection, and find that this is by far the best predictor of egg shape.Why, then, are there no hot-air balloon–shaped eggs? Not only do they appear developmentally hard to produce, but perhaps they offer no obvious selective advantage over a spherical egg: They are still inconveniently wide, with little increase in volume.Egg collecting is now deeply unfashionable and rightly illegal. But from its heyday in the late 19th to the mid-20th century, it has bequeathed to us data that can yield wonderful evolutionary insights, as Stoddard et al.‘s study underlines.Evolution. Evolution. Evolution. Got it? Eggs evolved by natural selection, and Science shows how. Darwin’s theory explains “an old mystery in natural history,” Phys.org says. No smart person should ever doubt evolution again. Look how useful evolutionary theory is to science! Spottiswoode says,Every bird egg serves the same function: to protect and nourish the offspring within while it grows from two cells to a fully formed chick. Yet this identical function is served by a striking diversity of egg shapes. Explanations for both the origin and function of this diversity have remained little more than anecdotal. On page 1249 of this issue, Stoddard et al. marry biophysics and ecology to provide a general theory that explains how and why diverse egg shapes arose. Based on a mathematical model, the authors predict that simple changes in the forces experienced by the shell membrane as the egg develops in the female’s oviduct are sufficient to generate the observed egg-shape diversity across all birds. The selection pressure that best explains its evolution comes from the characteristic we most associate with birds: flight.One certainly can’t fault the scientific rigor of Stoddard’s team. They accessed a museum collection of almost 50,000 eggs from 1,400 bird species. They proposed a hypothesis. They used math and built a chart with ellipticity on one access and asymmetry on the other axis. They compared the positions of eggs on this chart with the flight behaviors of the species. They made predictions that were fulfilled, and covered anomalies with auxiliary explanations. They showed how their hypothesis succeeds over the “anecdotal” proposals of others. Evolution wins again!In an eggshell, the explanation goes like this: the demands of flight create selection pressure on egg shape. Spottiswoode dispenses with old theories about clutch size, the need to prevent rolling off cliffs, and other “intriguing but ultimately parochial hypotheses” to lead into the new-and-improved idea hatched by Stoddard’s team:Instead they find consistent support for a simple hypothesis. Birds are streamlined for flight. Perhaps streamlined birds need narrower eggs to negotiate their narrower pelvis, and because the only way to fit a chick into a narrower egg is to make the egg longer, elliptical or asymmetric eggs result. This hypothesis predicts that species under strong selection for flight-related adaptations—such as migrants and aerial insectivores—should have elliptical or asymmetric rather than spherical eggs. The authors use an index of aerodynamic wing shape as a proxy for such selection, and find that this is by far the best predictor of egg shape. Swifts that live almost all of their lives on the wing have elliptical eggs. Sandpipers that traverse the globe have elliptical, asymmetric eggs. Puffbirds and trogons of tropical forests that may rarely leave their territories tend to have relatively spherical eggs. So, too, do flightless ostriches, but not penguins—perhaps because they must be streamlined to “fly” underwater. Within specific taxonomic groups, additional correlations suggest that other demands, such as clutch size, do further modulate egg shape, but none applies generally across all birds. Why, then, are there no hot-air balloon–shaped eggs? Not only do they appear developmentally hard to produce, but perhaps they offer no obvious selective advantage over a spherical egg: They are still inconveniently wide, with little increase in volume.Some QuestionsCan the evolutionary answer stand up to a gentle whiff of questioning? A running theme at CEH is that natural selection is a vacuous concept masquerading as a scientific explanation. By failing to provide real concrete predictions that are testable, natural selection reduces to the Stuff Happens Law—the opposite of explanation. Whatever happens, “it evolved,” so that the explanation becomes a just-so story. Are these scientists and reporters playing make-believe again? Or have they really demonstrated the value of Natural Selection theory for science? Let’s think about it.We should note first that egg shapes are examples of microevolution. Getting a chick to develop in 21 days that can hatch and fly is the big issue for evolution; egg shape and size seem very minor by comparison. We might compare the phenomenon to a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Changing the shape of the hat or the size of the rabbit doesn’t matter as much as being able to do the trick itself. Furthermore, the evolutionary story fails to rule out creation or intelligent design, because advocates of those positions are perfectly happy to see variation in egg shape for different species, and are willing to admit some degree of change over time. So far, then, we don’t see the evolutionary story deserving of privileged status.Pelican, courtesy Illustra Media.The biggest piece of evidence they adduce is the chart showing a correlation between flight behavior and egg shape. It’s an interesting pattern. Correlation, however, does not imply causation. Does the egg shape drive the female bird’s oviduct, or does the oviduct drive the egg shape? If aerodynamic efficiency makes natural selection drive egg shape, one would think it would also drive everything else about the bird, like beak shape and mass. But beaks among strong flyers vary all over the map (consider pelicans, hummingbirds, and Arctic terns). Furthermore, for good reason, females only lay eggs when they are not flying. And what about the males, who don’t have an oviduct? It’s not exactly clear why natural selection would have any influence on egg shape. How do they know the differences are not due to genetic drift or some other non-Darwinian mechanism?Hummingbird eggs, by David CoppedgeMore importantly, the scientists, and Ms Spottiswoode and the Phys.org reporter, fail to apply neo-Darwinian theory correctly. They do not identify any mutation in egg shape genes that consistently appears and gets selected when a flyer needs an elliptical egg to survive and produce offspring. That should be the case if natural selection is a law of nature superior to the Stuff Happens Law. They fail to show how every other member of the population died out, such that only the individuals possessing the mutation survived to lay eggs. The explanation, in fact, sounds Lamarckian (inheritance of acquired characteristics) – certainly no less anecdotal than the preceding hypotheses. A look through the main paper reveals the authors admitting that in some respects, the preceding hypotheses made predictions about egg shape that work just as well as theirs. Wobbling between multiple conflicting variables, their flight-adaptation hypothesis reduces to speculation with a very weak empirical basis.Adding to the trouble, their phylogenetic analysis fails to find a consistent ancestry connecting flight ability to egg shape, leaving them scrambling for auxiliary hypotheses like convergence and parallel evolution. Watch the perhapsimaybecouldness index rise like a stiff breeze, threatening the stability of their hatched hypothesis:We do not suggest that a female’s flight behavior during the egg formation period directly affects egg formation, nor do we suggest that egg shape so strongly influences the flight abilities of female birds during their egg-laying period that selection has produced an aerodynamic egg. Rather, we propose that general adaptations for strong flight select for a constrained, muscular, streamlined body plan in both males and females, giving rise in the latter, directly or indirectly, to asymmetric and/or elliptical eggs. The precise physiological mechanisms by which morphological adaptations for flight might affect egg shape are unknown. However, the answer most likely lies in the two parameters highlighted by our biophysical model: egg membrane thickness variations and the differential pressure applied across the membrane, both of which are potentially shaped by selection for a streamlined body plan.Humpty Dumpty just fell. Wasn’t natural selection Darwin’s famous ‘mechanism’ to explain everything in biology? They just said the mechanisms are ‘unknown’, and only ‘might’ affect egg shape. They just said natural selection might work ‘directly or indirectly’—well, which is it? Clearly they do not know. Selection might have been ‘giving rise to’ (miracle words) “asymmetric and/or elliptical eggs,” implying that whatever influence natural selection had was general, non-specific and ambiguous. Is this an explanation, or something they find ‘most likely’ and ‘potentially’ explanatory? That’s only an opinion—a preference. Readers should make up their own minds about the strength of the evidence, not kowtow to the authors’ bluffing about the success of their hypothesis.In short, their hypothesis crashes to the ground right during the Darwin celebration, leaving a scrambled mess of just-so storytelling behind. Spottiswoode concludes that Stoddard’s team has not shown natural selection to play a causative role, and except in a “satisfyingly general” way (i.e., a storytelling way), has really explained very little at all:Stoddard et al. conclude that variation in egg shape at a broad scale is best explained by variation in the need to fly. But although satisfyingly general, this discovery will be far from the final word. A bird’s egg was famously described by abolitionist Thomas Wentworth Higginson as “the most perfect thing in the universe” [3/09/17], but this apparent perfection is most likely the sum of multiple ecological, structural, and developmental compromises. It remains unclear why egg shapes tend toward being spherical in the absence of strong selection for powered flight. Do asymmetry and ellipticity carry costs, such as making an egg easier to break into or harder to break out of? And why has natural selection solved the streamlining problem with elongate and symmetric eggs in some species, and elongate and asymmetric eggs in others—that is, what best explains the variation along the x axis of the figure? Did elongate eggs repeatedly evolve in concert with narrower pelvises, and do their shell membranes vary in thickness and composition in the way that Stoddard et al.‘s model predicts? Their paper opens up a rich seam for researchers to explore.The authors end with nothing left but futureware , in hope that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can pick up the pieces and build a better evolutionary story.Our macroevolutionary analyses suggest that birds adapted for high-powered flight may maximize egg size by increasing egg asymmetry and/or ellipticity, while maintaining a streamlined body plan. Moving forward, it will be important to determine how the developmental process of egg shaping is coupled, in terms of physiology and genetics, with evolutionary constraints associated with flight strength and efficiency.The very thing they promised to explain—egg shape by natural selection (‘selection pressure’)—they now say has to be be explained in the future—egg shaping by natural selection (‘evolutionary constraints’). If natural selection theory has this much trouble with something as simple as egg shape, how can it explain flight itself, where multiple adaptations must appear simultaneously to keep the bird airborne? (See the Illustra film, Flight: The Genius of Birds.)Exercise: Here’s another paper in PNAS that purports to show how natural selection explains symbiotic relationships. It looks very impressive, with lots of math and jargon. But does it really succeed in proving the explanatory power of Darwinian theory? Or is it more like the glitzy ballroom on the Titanic hiding a flawed engine room unable to sustain impact by the iceberg of pointed questions? Look for evidence of high PCI (perhapsimaybecouldness index), exceptions to rules, storytelling, speculation, and fudging of parameters to obtain desired conclusions.Recommended Resource: (Visited 649 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
16 January 2015Some 270 000 young people had landed jobs since the implementation of the Employment Tax Incentive Act, the National Treasury said on 15 January.National Treasury spokesperson Jabulani Sikhakhane said about 29 000 employers had made use of the incentive. It came into effect in 2014, after the law was passed in December 2013.“Information received from the South African Revenue Service (SARS) indicates that employers have claimed the incentive for at least 270 000 employees up until the end of December 2014,” he said.“National Treasury is working with SARS to use the data that is included in the bi- annual reporting requirements from employers to create a more detailed assessment of the impact of the Act on youth employment. This work is still progressing, but a report will be published when the analysis is complete.”The law was passed in December 2013 after consultations with labour unions and business at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac).Sikhakhane said the National Treasury would continue to monitor the implementation of the incentive and may act to change it if there were unintended consequences that were not in line with the objective of creating more employment.“As the incentive progresses and more data becomes available it will be easier to investigate these specific questions and they will be covered in any report that is published on the incentive.” The initial take up of the incentive had been “higher than expected”, which could be seen as a positive start.“More time is required to adequately assess the overall success of the policy as it is dependent on the number of new jobs created and the future opportunities and progression of employees who were hired as a result of the incentive.“The incentive will then be up for review in 2016, where adjustments may be made to improve its impact and effectiveness,” Sikhakhane said.The current phase of the Employment Tax Incentive is aimed at helping young people between the ages of 18 and 29 to get work.“The other two categories of intended beneficiaries have no age restrictions and they are workers employed by companies operating in special economic zones designated by notice by the Minister of Finance in the [Government] Gazette; and workers employed by a business which is part of an industry which has been designated by the Minister of Finance, after consultation with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Industry, by notice in the Gazette,” Sikhakhane said.The incentive was first announced by President Jacob Zuma in 2010 against the concerns of an increasing rate of unemployment among young people. Following this announcement, Pravin Gordhan, at the time minister of finance, introduced the incentive in his 2010 Budget.In February 2011, a discussion paper, “Confronting youth unemployment: policy options for South Africa” was published. It was referred to Nedlac for consultation, and the National Treasury said the comments made at Nedlac had been included in the newly approved draft Bill.Source: SANews
this came loved it but it is very short I pay the I like the hair, though it is shorter than it appears in the picture. Very good quality, arrived in good time. I will be ordering more and telling friends about this. Hello can exchange the product for a longer ?this came loved it but it is very short i pay the difference without problems. Here are the specifications for the Beauty7 1 Bundle/pack High Quality 5AAAAA Grade Unprocessed Virgin Brazilian Human Hair Extension Deep Wave Hair Style Natural Hair Color 8 inch-30 inch No Tangling No Shedding 100g:Condition:brand new. Hair life:3-12 Months (Depending on Care and Usage)Weight:100g.Color:Natural black color.Length:8 inch-30 inch are availableHair type:weaving weft hair extension.Hair style:deep wave.Length of the hair is the same.High Quality, Tangle Free, Silky Softy Smooth Gorgeous Straight hair. 100% human hair, no fiber, no synthetic.Package:1 bundle/pack.Usually recommend 2-3 bundles for full head.Note: Please be reminded that due to lighting effects, monitor’s brightness / contrast settings etc, there could be some slight differences in the color tone of the pictures and the actual item. SummaryReviewer Nathalie DuboisReview Date2019-05-29 10:04:39Reviewed Item 1 Bundle/pack High Quality 5AAAAA Grade Unprocessed Virgin Brazilian Human Hair Extension Deep Wave Hair Style Natural Black Hair Color 8 inch-30 inch No Tangling No Shedding 100g (8inch 21cm)Rating 4.7 / 5 stars, based on 6 reviews Posted on May 29, 2019Author Nathalie DuboisCategories Hair ExtensionsTags Beauty7 Hair is good but cannot be straightened, the hair is coming from china so make sure you order this in advance to when you need it as it can take up to 3 weeks to arrive. Its not 100 grams either it was about 86 when i weighed it however it was still thick all the way down to the bottom even though it was 28 inches, you will need about 3 packs for weave. Reviews from purchasers :Four Stars
Trends Driving the Loyalty Marketing Industry I’m frequently an “only.” I’m often the only woman in a boardroom, speaking on a conference agenda, or attending an executive meeting. And I work in a field that’s often considered female-led: Media, PR, and advertising tend to have a higher percentage of women. Even so, at the most senior levels, women are left behind.According to the 2018 Women in the Workplace study by McKinsey & Company and LeanIn.org, a measly 4 percent of Fortune 500 companies have a female CEO. Further, only 19 percent of senior management positions are held by women. Similarly, in the advertising industry, only 11 percent of creative directors are female. And the CEOs of women’s lifestyle media outlets like Bustle, Refinery29, PopSugar, and PureWow are all men. Women are underrepresented at every level in corporate America, despite obtaining more degrees, even at the doctoral level.So why does this matter? Because if a company’s people don’t look like the society surrounding the business, how can products and services — and, by extension, their marketing — be expected to meet society’s needs? Diverse teams generate better ideas, and better ideas improve the bottom line. Similar to the insufficiency of female directors in Hollywood, our society is robbed of the ability to hear stories in advertising that accurately depict life from women’s perspective.How a Lack of Representation Hurts CompaniesThis lack of representation impacts business in two ways. The first is quite simple: Stereotypes in advertising are bad for business. Compared to gender-balanced brands, male-skewed brands are valued, on average, $9 billion less. This suggests that too many brand marketers maintain an antiquated view of who buys their products, both now and in the future. This fallacy results in losing market share to brands with broader gender appeal that are liked by both men and women.The proof is found in Kantar’s AdReaction study, “Getting Gender Right,” which recently discovered that females are over-targeted in categories like laundry and household products and under-targeted in areas like automotive. Being “progressive” these days can be as easy as challenging outdated assumptions that only women buy laundry detergent and dish soap.Change is happening, but not fast enough. In our research at Exverus Media, alongside Nielsen AdIntel, we found that several traditionally female-targeted brands like Huggies, Pampers, Kotex, Tampax, and Tide have all recently begun shifting their media mix, perhaps realizing that men buy diapers and women watch sports. Advertising investments for these products on ESPN increased by more than 32 times over the past 10 years, even when accounting for inflation.On the flip side, businesses can be positively impacted by ensuring gender equality, first on their boards and subsequently in their media and messaging. The brands that most quickly disrupt the status quo will have the most to gain: Valuation growth of disrupter brands is 165 percent higher than incumbent brands, according to Kantar.How Brands Can — and Should — AdaptWith the rise of online-based direct-to-consumer brands like Glossier, Birchbox, Stitch Fix, and ThirdLove — all women-founded — the traditional thinking by old-school male-led brands is being shaken up. These D2C brands cater to the explicit needs and desires of their target audience — women — and, therefore, deliver a superior experience to those women while old-guard brands are flat or in decline.In response, we’re starting to see incumbent brands employ female directors like Kim Gehrig, who took on the recent controversial Gillette ad. The ad’s anti-toxic masculinity TV spot delivered “unprecedented levels of both media coverage and consumer engagement,” according to P&G CFO Jon Moeller.“Only” women aren’t waiting around for change — it’s happening now. One example can be found in an organization called WIMMIES (Women in Media), a 501(c)(6) nonprofit networking group for women in the Los Angeles area working in digital media. “Wimmies’ mission is to empower women to ascend the ranks in the media and marketing industries. We do this through networking and educational events. We’ve all heard the oft-referenced quote, ‘It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.’ As a woman, you have to cover both,” says Amy Halvorsen, Wimmies co-founder and digital account executive at Disney Interactive.She goes on to explain, “Women drive the world economy, and it’s a financial miss to exclude their voices. In this era…it’s risky for media companies and brands not to include women at the highest echelons.”Other organizations dedicated to increasing women’s visibility in executive roles include She Runs It and The Female Quotient, which hosts women-inclusive embedded series at events ranging from Cannes to SXSW. By expanding the number of women who have decision-making power and influence over the advertising produced, women are far less likely to be marginalized within ads themselves.It’s a strong call to action, not only for women in the marketing industry, but also across the country. When women’s voices aren’t being heard — whether it’s in meetings or in the media — we need to take it upon ourselves to seek them out. It’s not just about leaving money on the table; it’s also about our responsibility to each other and our shared future. Tags:#advertising#brand advertising#branding#marketing#women#women executives#women in advertising#women in business#women leaders Related Posts The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos Talia Arnold Digital Marketing Jobs in the Government Sector AI is Not the Holy Grail of Sales, at Least Not… Talia Arnold is the co-founder of media company Exverus.
As many as 60 government school teachers have been suspended for allegedly using fake B.Ed. degrees to get the jobs, a Uttar Pradesh Education department official said on Wednesday. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) Chandra Shekhar said the teachers, all of who were earlier transferred from Mathura to other districts, will also face legal action. The official said over 4,500 government school teachers across the state who got jobs on the basis of fake B.Ed. degrees or other certificates have been identified so far. Efforts are on to take speedy action against them, Mr. Shekhar said. The BSAs of different districts are identifying location of such teachers by sharing information, Mr. Shekhar said, adding that the number may swell further as probe is on.
A day after fault lines in Maharashtra Congress were visible over the issue of extending support to Shiv Sena, the State leadership blamed the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for the continuing crisis. “The BJP is responsible for the mess in the State. It had given the word to its ally in Maharashtra. It did not fulfil the promise neither it treated its ally with care. The BJP is holding out the threat of President’s Rule in Maharashtra. Whom are they threatening? Because of the BJP, entire State has landed in a difficult position,” said State Congress president Balasaheb Thorat. Mr. Thorat alleged that the BJP has already started using all dirty tricks to poach MLAs of other parties. “The BJP was using all its tricks even before the elections. Now that they are falling short of numbers, it is resorting to the same methods,” he claimed.Leader of Opposition Vijay Vadettiwar too blamed the BJP for leading the State towards constitutional crisis. “If the BJP has emerged as the single largest party in the State, then it is the party’s responsibility to stake claim and form the government. By not doing so, the party is pushing the State towards President’s Rule. They are responsible for the present condition of the State,” he said. Meanwhile, a day after announcing a three-day tour to areas affected by excessive unseasonal rains, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar is likely to cut short his tour and return to Mumbai on Friday morning. The five-year term of the present Assembly ends on November 8 midnight. “It seems the BJP is not going to stake claim and is ready for President’s Rule. The party seem to be on wait and watch mode till Sena blinks. It will not form the government with minority mandate,” said senior journalist and political commentator Sanjay Jog.