ESPS TORNADOOn 13 March 2014, EU Naval Force warship, ESPS Tornado departed Operation Atalanta’s patrol areas off the Somali coast after completing 105 days and is now heading for her home port of Las Palmas in Gran Canaria. Share this article View post tag: operation ESPS Tornado Departs Operation Atalanta March 17, 2014 Training & Education View post tag: Navy View post tag: Departs Back to overview,Home naval-today ESPS Tornado Departs Operation Atalanta View post tag: ESPS View post tag: Tornado View post tag: ATALANTA View post tag: News by topic View post tag: Naval As the ship set a navigation course for Spain, the Rear Admiral Bléjean, who is the Force Commander at sea spoke about ESPS Tornado’s important contribution in the fight against piracy:“I want to congratulate all 83 crewmembers of ESPS Tornado, who are now returning home to their families having performed great work. They have helped to keep the seas safe from pirate attack. I wish them all a safe journey, with fair winds and following seas. I feel privileged to have had them in the Operation Atalanta for more than three months”.During her time with the EU Naval Force, ESPS Tornado, under the command of Lieutenant Commander Juan Jose Belizón Izquierdo, patrolled the piracy high risk areas and performed 18 friendly approaches with local seafarers. The ship also provided much-needed assistance to the crew of a dhow after the vessel got into distress at sea.Commissioned in 2012, ESPS Tornado is the fourth in the series of modern and multipurpose Ocean Patrol Vessels (OPV) operated by the Spanish Navy.[mappress]Press Release, March 17, 2014, 2014; Image: EU Navfor
Guyana battle Trinidad today in RAN 15s South Zone FinalONE of the biggest rivalries in Rugby within the Caribbean will take centre stage today at the St Stanislaus College ground, Carifesta Avenue, when Guyana do battle against Trinidad and Tobago in the final of the Rugby Americas North (RAN) 15s South Zone Final. Kick-off time 16:00hrs.Brendan O’Farrell, Trinidad and Tobago’s head coach, told Chronicle Sport yesterday that his side is anxiously anticipating the encounter today with Guyana, especially since the ‘Soca Ruggers have been beaten in their last two encounters.Guyana, more popularly known as the ‘Green Machine’ are acknowledged by many as the most-feared Rugby team in the Caribbean, more so in the game’s shortest version – sevens.However, in the 15s format, Guyana have made some historical strides, with their victory 30-27 against the USA (South) in 2014, to win their maiden NACRA (now known as RAN) 15s title in Atlanta – their biggest achievement yet.In both 7s and 15s, Trinidad remain Guyana’s toughest opposition. In last year’s Ran South Zone 15s final, Guyana prevailed 23-18 over Trinidad, but this time around O’Farrell is hoping for a different result.“Guyana have had the upper hand on us over the last couple of years. We know each other very well and on the day it’s who want it the most,” O’Farrell said, adding, “Both teams would have prepared as well as they can, but at the end of the day it’s who want it the most.”Despite being tough in their defence, Guyana outscore their opposition using their quickness on the wings, with former national Patrick King and West Indies skipper Claudius Butts doing the damage; but O’Farrell pointed out that adjustments will be made to not only stop the Guyanese from using their advantage.(But also) “You have to try and negate the strength of the team. Fortunately, we have quite a few of them playing in Trinidad so we’re familiar with them,” the Trinidad and Tobago head coach said.Asked about the possibility of winning and what it will mean for Rugby on his Island, O’Farrell pointed out, “The win will do well for us in Trinidad. Guyana have won the Southern Championship for the last two years and it will be nice to take the trophy back to Trinidad and move on to play the bigger countries.”Meanwhile, with a clash against Mexico (RAN’s North Zone Champions) on the horizon, Guyana’s captain Ryan Gonsalves is hoping to replicate their performance against the Trinidadians last year and urged all to come out and support his side.It was not all smooth sailing for the Guyanese side, who only on Thursday were able to secure a venue for the game, since their usual battleground, the National Park, was deemed unplayable because of the heavy rainfall experienced over the last couple of days.The team had to deal with their usual lack of support from both Government and corporate Guyana; something Gonsalves is “challenging”.“It is challenging and frustrating to see such a good team, playing this good all the years, being faced with these difficulties year in, year out. It is about time someone from the Government put his/her foot forward, or major sponsors help us out,” Gonsalves said.“It is always a challenge for any team playing home or aboard. We are trying to see how we can leave the off-field stuff from affecting us and try to focus on today’s game,” Gonsalves pointed out.But despite the challenges, Gonsalves is adamant that the ‘Green Machine’ will be ready for today’s game both mentally and physically.“We are pretty ready for them. We have been working on certain tactics to work the big guys out and see how long they can last. We will be very mobile and attack them rather than sit and wait for them to come to us.”Banks DIH, a long-time supporter of the Guyana Rugby Football Union (GRFU), will be partnering with the Union through its world famous Banks Beer brand, for today’s clash.Communications Manager Troy Peters pointed out that the company is more than happy to continue its alliance with the GRFU and also made a call for the public to support the team.
LEONA VALLEY – Leona Valley’s cherry crop, which draws fruit lovers from all over Southern California and even from Japan and Europe, is ripening later than usual. Rain and cool weather in March and April delayed the cherry blossoms and pushed back the ripening until about mid-June – though the town’s traditional Cherry Parade and Festival will go on June 10 as scheduled. “All the cherry orchards in the valley are in the same boat due to weather. We’re all waiting for our cherries to ripen and we won’t open until they are ripe,” said Leona Valley Cherry Growers Association President Jennifer Beeler. The parade will start at 11 a.m. on June 10 along Leona Avenue south of Elizabeth Lake Road. The festival begins after the parade and goes until 4 p.m. at the community center on Elizabeth Lake Road, featuring a barbecue, vendors and handicraft sales. AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MORE11 theater productions to see in Southern California this week, Dec. 27-Jan. 2Orchards’ opening dates will be reported on the growers association telephone hotline at (661) 266-7116. The smaller orchards get picked out early while the larger orchards stay open longer, Beeler said. Cherries ripen sooner at the orchards off the valley floor. Blessed with an altitude and climate suited for cherries, the valley has more than 20 “U-pick” sweet cherry ranches and one sour cherry ranch where visitors can enjoy the country atmosphere and pick the fruit themselves. Beeler runs the valley’s oldest orchard, whose oldest trees were planted in 1959. 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!
Science is an unbiased, objective, disciplined, cooperative method for progressively uncovering truth about the natural world. That’s the way most of us were taught to think about it in school. Further reflection, however, produces a host of questions rarely discussed in science class. How does science differ from other unbiased, objective, disciplined, cooperative methods of inquiry? What is special about scientific logic? To what does science refer? How much impact does our humanness and our relationships have on scientific theories? What is the scientific method? How is science to be distinguished from pseudoscience? Are all branches of science worthy of the same respect? What constitutes a scientific explanation? If our best theories are only tentative, how can we ever know when we have a grasp on reality that is unlikely to be overturned or subsumed under a greater theory? These and many other questions can keep philosophers of science in the Humanities departments busy for years (but with less grant money). Working scientists don’t often pay them much attention. Maybe they should. Nature1 printed a rare excursion into philosophy of science2 that cast severe doubt on the ability of science to ever grasp reality with sufficient confidence to say we have “arrived” at understanding of the cosmos. P.-M Binder, an astronomer at the University of Hawaii in Hilo, explored the reasonings of David Wolpert, known for his work on the “No Free Lunch” theorems.3 He sought to explore the nature and limits of scientific reasoning. Wolpert demonstrated in a recent paper4 that “the entire physical Universe cannot be fully understood by any single inference system that exists within it” (Binder’s words). If that sounds like something Turing or Gödel would say, it is. Wolpert is not the first to demonstrate fundamental limits on human knowledge. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is a famous example. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is another: it placed fundamental limits on the ability of mathematical theories to validate themselves. Wolpert follows in this tradition with “impossibility results.” He proved with mathematics and logic that in the Universe of sequences of events that follow natural laws, no two strong inference machines can be strongly inferred from each other. His conclusions are independent of any particular natural laws employed in the inference. This means that science can never know everything: just almost everything in the best case. When you “know” one inference well, there will always be at least one other category of inference that will be unclear or ambiguous. Example: the equations of chaos theory can perform pretty well in predicting outcomes of seemingly disorganized systems that have a “strong attractor,” at least up to an acceptable level of accuracy. The catch is: the method cannot validate the equations themselves. What Wolpert has done, in his own words, is demonstrate “impossibility results” in scientific logic that “can be viewed as a non-quantum-mechanical ‘uncertainty principle.’” In short, science cannot validate itself. Science will never produce a theory of everything. Gone are the optimistic 18th-century traditions of Laplace that, given knowledge of each particle’s position and momentum, future outcomes could be predicted with any desired degree of certainty. The Uncertainty Principle, generalized into scientific logic by Wolpert, has shown that the more precise an observer measures one quantity (or inference), the more uncertain becomes the other. Gone also are claims that given a long enough lever and a place to stand, one could move the world. That standing place will always be wobbly.1. P.-M Binder, “Philosophy of science: Theories of almost everything,” Nature 455, 884-885 (16 October 2008) | doi:10.1038/455884a.2. Two articles in The Scientist this month affirm that philosophy of science is neglected in science education these days: one by James Williams on “What Makes Science ‘Science’?” and a follow-up by Richard Gallagher on “Why the Philosophy of Science Matters.” Both articles, unfortunately, appear to espouse a narrow view that resembles logical positivism. This view would be considered indefensible by many philosophers today after the Kuhnian Revolution of the 1960s and the Science Wars of the 1990s. Both also arrogated objectivity to establishment scientists while denigrating creationists and others as ideologues. One respondent caught Summers in name calling. Summers backpedaled somewhat, acknowledging his own dogmatism and the fallibility of science.3. For background on the No Free Lunch theorems, see William Dembski’s book No Free Lunch, Rowman and Littlefield, 2002, esp. section 4.6.4. David H. Wolpert, “Physical limits of inference,” Physica D 237, 1257�1281 (2008), doi:10.1016/j.physd.2008.03.040.“Science is truth,” chants Finagle’s Creed; “Do not be misled by facts!” The limitations of scientific inference explored by Wolpert must hit thinking scientists like a rude awakening. It’s like dreaming of climbing a mountain only to find oneself going up a down escalator. The Truth about the Universe will forever remain beyond the reach of science. Binder ended on a confident note that science might still be converging on a close approximation of reality. Oddly, he ended by showing that two subjects in fundamental physics are beset with shortcomings: the standard model of particle physics, and the so-far intractable problem of uniting quantum mechanics with gravity. But then he said optimistically, in conclusion, “It is possible, though, that these various theories, along with all that we have learned in physics and other scientific disciplines, will yet merge into the best science can do: a theory of almost everything.” Almost is not good enough. There will always be something else you cannot know. Like Ken Ham quips: if you can’t know what you don’t know, you can’t know what you do know; and if you can’t know what you do know, you might know very little. To which we add: how could you ever know whether the most important puzzle piece lies outside your world view, in the inference machine that cannot be inferred from within your system? Maybe, for instance, the most important piece lies in theology.(Visited 49 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Students and citizens are taught a very distorted view of what science is and how it actually works.Basic science is not an unbiased knowledge generator. Daniel Sarewitz pulls no punches in Nature this week. “Kill the myth of the miracle machine,” he shouts in his column that stabs one of science’s most treasured sacred cows: the value of “basic science.” The very, very few cases where undirected investigation has actually produced some worthwhile findings do not justify calls for non-targeted political funding, he argues, nor do the leftist attacks on funding cuts for basic research justify labels of a “war on science.” Science is not some kind of “miracle machine” where you turn a crank of scientific method and out pops knowledge. “Exceptional science is produced not by a miracle machine, but by institutions that tie scientific curiosity to problem solving,” he says. In fact, promoting the myth of the miracle machine can actually backfire.Vast improvements in the scientific system could be had if science agencies strengthened the ties that link research agendas to societal needs, and counteract the perverse incentives that commit scientists to careers measured by publications and grant dollars rather than the creation of socially valuable knowledge.Impact factor has been a counter-productive measure. Speaking of killing old myths, Nature is also glad to read an obituary for the dubious measure of scientific value called “impact factor.” What was supposed to provide a “bibliometric” measure of scientific value actually did the opposite. “It should never have been used and has done great damage to science,” complains Richard J. Roberts. “Let us bury it once and for all.”The impact factor is often used, improperly, to provide a mathematical measure of a scientist’s productivity, on the basis of where they published their results. It has proved popular with bureaucrats, and even with many researchers, because it seems to offer an easy way to determine the value of a scientist’s output for someone who is either unable or too lazy to read that scientist’s papers and judge their true worth (see P. Stephan et al. Nature 544, 411–412; 2017).Science is not supposed to be a money prize. The Editors of Nature worry about perverse incentives at work in China, where the government rewards scientists too quickly with grants and bonuses for what they consider successful research. “Don’t pay prizes for published science,” they argue. “For one thing, it creates a culture in which scientists look at their research as a means to make quick cash.” It also “rewards science that is not yet proven.” Like impact factor, metrics for what constitute successful research are often “greatly overblown.”Scientists are not above data manipulation. We asked last month (6/12/17), “If science is superior, why does it need fixing?” More evidence that scientists are like other fallible humans led Nature to complain about the problem of “image doctoring” in scientific papers – a problem that has mushroomed with the rise of digital manipulation tools like Photoshop. Publishers and editors do not always catch the digital trickery, and algorithms to detect image doctoring are not good enough yet. “By both human and technological means, research organizations, researchers and journals need to do more to counter the image-manipulation challenge.” But wait; weren’t we all taught the myth of the unbiased scientist seeking only truth for its own sake?Models do not always catch important details. Mathematical models, frequently used in science, try to simplify reality by focusing on pertinent details. But which details are pertinent? Researchers decided to check a popular “quarter vehicle” model used by auto manufacturers to gauge ride dynamics. They added in other factors omitted by the model and compared the results. They found that omitted details do make a big difference. Their paper in PLoS One says,The results clearly indicated that these details do have effect on simulated vehicle response, but to various extents. In particular, road input detail and suspension damping detail have the most significance and are worth being added to quarter vehicle model, as the inclusion of these details changed the response quite fundamentally. Overall, when it comes to lumped-mass vehicle modeling, it is reasonable to say that model accuracy depends not just on the number of degrees of freedom employed, but also on the contributions from various modeling details.What other models in science, for the sake of convenience and simplicity, are failing to consider significant details that could fundamentally change the conclusions? The more complex the problem, such as with global climate, the more it seems the simplicity is the enemy of accuracy – especially when conclusions are not readily testable as they were in this case.Language can manipulate rather than enlighten. We shared examples recently (7/02/17) of leftist bias in science. Sometimes leftist researchers are open about their manipulation. Phys.org reports on psychologists who found that saying “climate change” instead of “global warming” reduces the “partisan gap by 30 percent in U.S.” This is a clear attempt to nudge voters rather than educate them (6/11/17). We can also add to the list another manipulative article posted by Phys.org that claims, “How bills to replace Obamacare would especially harm women.” Conservative researchers could easily argue the exact opposite conclusion from well-grounded data; so why don’t they get the microphone of Phys.org or The Conversation?Bad definitions of science prevent scientists from finding truth. The editors of Nature tried to be nice to Catholics on May 15, only to be shouted down by a reader, who repeated the myth of scientism in the June 22 issue of Nature. According to Frank W. Nicholas, the editors forgot to be naturalistic enough:Your Editorial suggests that Pope Francis’s meeting with patients and researchers is evidence of “a new openness [of religion] towards science”, in the spirit of his 2015 encyclical Laudato si’ (Nature 545, 265–266; 2017). This is tempered by your view that the encyclical nevertheless illustrates “a chasm between religion and science that cannot be bridged”.In my view, the encyclical’s most fruitful comment on science and religion is that they have “distinctive approaches to understanding reality” (paragraph 62; see go.nature.com/2swk22m). The essence of this distinctiveness is that the modern scientific approach never invokes God as an explanation for any phenomenon. This restatement of ‘methodological naturalism’ is not science being anti-God: it is science being science. All scientists adhere to this approach, including scientists who believe in God. In the religious approach, by contrast, God is at the heart of phenomena.It follows that the fundamental distinction between science and religion has nothing to do with the question of whether or not God exists.These insights can inform the debate around what should and should not be taught in science classes on, for example, evolution. In shedding light on the nature of the “chasm” between science and religion, these insights can also inform the new openness to which you refer.It seems lost on Nicholas that methodological naturalism of this sort is guaranteed to come to wrong conclusions if God does exist and was involved. For instance, if God did create life, all the efforts and funds to find a natural origin are doomed to failure. If evolution is false, then all the published papers about natural selection creating man from molecules are also false. By excluding intelligent causes, would Nicholas insist on a natural explanation for Stonehenge? Would he insist on unguided natural causes as the only tools to explain his own righteous indignation? If so, his arguments would implode.Nicholas bought into the NOMA myth of Stephen J. Gould without apparently being aware of its weaknesses. His letter illustrates the unchallenged assumption of a particular philosophy in scientific institutions – methodological naturalism – which, as intelligent design advocates have frequently argued, becomes indistinguishable in practice from philosophical naturalism (for some of the debate, search on ‘methodological naturalism’ at Evolution News). Causation is a long-standing debate where the extreme positions obfuscate the productive middle ground. Surely no theistic scientist is going to attribute the precipitation of chemicals in a flask to the direct intervention of God. But neither should an atheistic science rule out convincing evidence for intelligent causes just to maintain his materialist philosophy. That could guarantee a false conclusion.The list above reports only some of the most recent debunkings of the myth of scientism from secular sources themselves. Big Science is a political force that once in awhile discovers interesting facts about nature, just like Big Education is a political force that once in awhile teaches something valuable to a student, or like Big Labor is a political force that once in awhile helps a worker. The real contributions usually come not from the top, but from the individuals who, through their own integrity and moral character, decide to help their fellow man. (Visited 688 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – The number of candidates looking to be elected to Fort St. John City Council in next month’s municipal election has officially dropped to 12.The City’s Communications Coordinator Ryan Harvey said today that Denise Menard provided written notification to the Chief Election Officer at 1:15 Friday afternoon that she was withdrawing her name as candidate for Councillor from the 2018 Municipal Election.Menard was one of two candidates to submit their nomination papers at the final minutes before the official nomination deadline at 4:00 p.m. last Friday. Both her and Gabor Haris were the final two official candidates to submit nominations.With Menard’s withdrawal today, there are currently 12 official candidates for council in Fort St. John.The six incumbents, Larry Evans, Gord Klassen, Byron Stewart, Trevor Bolin, Bruce Christensen, and Lilia Hansen, are all seeking re-election, along with Chuck Fowler, Becky Grimsrud, Gabor Haris, Jim Harris, Justin Jones, and Tony Zabinsky.The official deadline to withdraw as a candidate is 4:00 p.m. on Friday, September 21st.For more information and a current list of candidates, please visit www.fortstjohn.ca/municipal-elections.
The Pub Night will include several opportunities to support this cause through purchasing 50/50 tickets, a silent auction with many great items donated from local businesses and door prizes to be drawn at 8:30 pm and 10:15 pm. The Canadian Brewhouse is offering an Appetizer Buffet from 7-9 pm, and it is sure to be a good time for all that attend.The United Way of Northern B.C. is excited for this evening event as the funds raised will be used within our direct community by being redirected to Not-For-Profit Organizations.The goal of UWNBC’s is to act as professional fundraisers on behalf of organizations that may not have the time or funding to hold their own fundraising campaigns. Organizations that are focused on providing programs in the community, and Not-For-Profit groups can apply for funding, and the UWNBC helps raise and redistribute funds to these organizations. As administration costs are kept very low at 10 percent, this means nine out of every ten dollars donated goes directly back to the community.To attend the event, November 30th, tickets are $20 and are available by contacting Lyndon Wincheruk at; 1.(250) 793.5415. If you are a business that would be interested in donating to the Pub Night, please contact Wincheruk at the number posted above.The FB Page for this event can be found by CLICKING HERE FORT ST.JOHN, B.C. – Finning is coming together with The Canadian Brewhouse to host a Pub Night with all proceeds raised going to the United Way of Northern B.C.Finning has an established relationship with the United Way by raising funds for their campaign. For the past 12 years, the company has done this with in-house fundraisers and incentives for employees and customers on a branch and corporate level, raising funds of more than 12 million dollars over that time.Lyndon Wincheruk, an employee with Finning for the past seven and a half years and with Ron Pardy, General Manager of the Canadian Brewhouse combined their efforts to create the Pub Night as a new and exciting way to raise funds for this year’s Finning’s Fundraising Local Campaign.
Kathleen Connolly, Group member and Executive Director of the Dawson Creek Chamber of Commerce, spoke at the Draft Agreement Meeting in Fort St. John asking the Government to extend the deadline and that an independent assessment should be completed before any agreements are finalized.“The socio-economic impacts to our region could potentially be devasting. The Provincial Government has not started a socio-economic impact assessment for any part of our region today. So what we’re asking in our letter is that Government extend the amount of time that Government and citizens can respond to these concerns, that the Regional District can hire legal counsel if they require it, that they can do an independent socio-economic assessment that looks at yours and compare that data and make decisions and mitigations that will actually allow our communities to be able to respond in a manner that will allow them to mitigate for what is going to happen to industry, not only forestry but mining and the small businesses that will be impacted by it.”The CCCR says they support the Regional Districts in any measures that they choose to implement leading up to the required assessments being completed.The letter to the Government can be found on the Concerned Citizens for Caribou Recovery Facebook page. FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – The Concerned Citizens for Caribou Recovery has sent a letter to the Provincial Government concerning the importance of completing a socio-economic impact assessment on the Caribou Recovery Process.In the letter, the CCCR says they are in full agreement with the Peace River Regional District that a socio-economic impact should be completed before the draft agreements are finalized.According to CCCR, the business community that relies on the proposed areas will be affected by the Section 11 and Partnership Agreement.
Lucknow: Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav on Monday said that regional parties will get more seats than the Congress and the BJP in the ongoing Lok Sabha polls.”I think regional parties will get more seats than the Congress and the BJP. The next PM will be from the regional parties,” he said at a press conference here. When asked whether he was in the race for the top post, Yadav said, “I am not in the race for prime ministership, but will be happy if next PM is from UP. I will support those who want to become PM.” Also Read – Uddhav bats for ‘Sena CM’On being asked if the SP-BSP alliance will support Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, whose name is doing rounds as a possible Congress candidate against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Yadav ruled out any support to the Congress saying, “Our alliance is with the BSP and the RLD. We will declare candidate from the Varanasi seat soon.” The SP is contesting the Lok Sabha polls in an alliance with the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), keeping the Congress out of the “gathbandhan”. Also Read – Farooq demands unconditional release of all detainees in J&KWhen asked about this tough stand against the Congress, he said, “A person who had filed a PIL against me and my father Mulayam Singh Yadav is seen with Congress leaders. You (media) can see the photograph. Congress should reply on this.” As far as the CBI is concerned, he said, “The Congress and the BJP have an alliance (for misusing the CBI against regional parties).” Asked about recent statements of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath against him, he said, “The pride of everyone cannot continue for long. This time people of the state will shatter his pride and send him to ‘Math’ (Gorakhnath Math).” He said the BJP leaders have “lost their mental balance” after the alliance and it reflected in their language. Asked about PM’s scheduled visit to Kannauj later this week, Yadav said, “The PM and CM should tell the people of Kannauj what their governments have done for them.” On Bhopal BJP candidate Pragya Singh Thakur over her remarks against slain Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare, he said, “Such people are fielded to divert the attention of the people. But people this time are alert.”
Darjeeling: Four persons arrested in connection with illegally entering a government building were produced at a Darjeeling Court onThursday. One of the arrested has been remanded to police custody. The GNLF, BJP and GJM (Bimal faction) leaders and supporters had entered the old party office of the GJM in Singamari on the Lebong Cart Road and put up party flags in the building on Wednesday afternoon. In 2017, the district administration had taken over the building stating that it was government land that had been illegally occupied and converted into a party office. Also Read – Bengal family worships Muslim girl as Goddess Durga in Kumari PujaThe police initiated a suo moto case naming Niraj Zimba, the BJP candidate, Manoj Dewan, BJP president, BP Bajgai, GJM (Bimal) spokesperson and others for forcefully entering a government building, putting up flags and shouting slogans. Four persons namely— Govind Rai and Anand Gurung of Happy Valley Tea Estate along with Kiran Thapa and Sunil Gurung of Pragati were arrested. They have been charged under Sections 448, 186, 353, 379, 325, 189, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under relevant sections of the Arms Act. Also Read – Bengal civic volunteer dies in road mishap on national highway”In the FIR it has been stated that four civic volunteers were roughed up as the accused persons made forceful entry. One has sustained injury and is hospitalised. The police prayed for remand of the four for recovery of the arms. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling has remanded Govind Rai to 3 days of police custody. The other three have been sent to judicial custody” stated Pankaj Prasad, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Darjeeling. With Assembly By-polls in Darjeeling the political environment has turned fluid in the Hills. On Thursday Niraj Zimba the BJP candidate alleged that his vehicle was vandalized and he was attacked by GJM (Binoy faction) in Happy Valley Tea Estate while he was campaigning. He lodged an FIR naming Radin Gurung and Anil Rai. Radin Gurung in turn lodged a counter FIR stating that his bike was vandalized by the GNLF and BJP supporters.