A 400 level student of Kwara State University has reached out to us to help her post an assault she suffered in the hands a guy identified as Omobolaji Ogundepo popularly known as Bolojay, who apparently, is also a Final Year Student in the same University.
The lady said, pictured below, revealed to us that a friend of Omobolaji named Idrees Sanusi asked her out, but she declined.. Then Omobolaji who had nothing to do with the whole “thing” confronted her, and battered her for not agreeing to date his Friend, Idrees.
The Victim, Identified as Mariam, said she reported to the School’s authority, but nothing was done to salvage the situation, as it is said that Omobolaji has some kind of influence in the school.
Omobolaji Ogundepo Mariam has been querying Idrees for the whereabout of his friend, Omobolaji, but he claims he doesn’t know his whereabout.
The incident happened on Monday, 8th of this Month, May, 2017.
A fan has used the controversial Pepsi advert to promote the 'Arsene Wenger Out' movement.
Demonstrations urging Wenger to call time on his Arsenal reign have popped up across the globe - from Vancouver to New Zealand - as the Frenchman delays announcing a decision on his next step.
And now a supporter has mocked up an image using the axed Pepsi commercial, which has been pulled after the company conceded they “missed the mark”.
The advert was met with a barrage of criticism and accused of “mocking” the Black Lives Matter movement and “appropriating the resistance”
One user noted that Twitter had used the doctored image including the 'Wenger Out' banner to promote a genuine story about the advert being pulled.
Billy Keenly wrote: "There's funny, and then there's Twitter using a #WengerOut photoshop as the thumbnail for the Pepsi ad story funny."
The scenario mirrors a genuine protest against the Arsenal manager which was spotted at a an anti-Trump rally in London earlier this year.
Wenger, whose Arsenal contract is up in the summer, is understood to have been offered a two-year extension despite the club's failure to win silverware this season and their place in next year's Champions League being anything but certain.
Arsenal appear to have broken a Premier League rule after failing to nominate a captain in the second half of Sunday's game against Manchester City.
Laurent Koscielny led the side in the first half for the 2-2 draw at the Emirates but came off at half-time and did not appear to have been replaced by a nominated skipper for the second half.
Under Premier League Rule M.11, a captain must wear an armband at all times.
An Arsenal spokesperson told Sky Sports News HQ it is unclear whether there was a captain in the second half but Theo Walcott was the senior player on the pitch.
Sky sources understand if there has been a breach, the Premier League will remind Arsene Wenger's side of the requirements and take no further action.
Gunners captain Per Mertesacker is currently injured, as well as vice-captains Santi Cazorla and Petr Cech.
The ability to protest is a noble one. Even so, you may wish to consider revisiting your life choices when, at 8:30 on a Tuesday morning, you find yourself at the top of a dirt track in London Colney dressed in full Arsenal kit and a mask of Alexis Sanchez's face, sitting on a prop marked "naughty step" and holding up a banner reading "#wengerout #alexisin," all while being flanked by two toy dogs. Yes, two toy dogs.
Oh Arsenal, what new depths can this embarrassment of a season possibly reach next?
While Wenger hones new ways to effectively say nothing about his future despite weekly entreaties from the press -- "don't worry, you will get that soon," was Tuesday's reply -- the Arsenal supporters are reduced to finding ever more desperate ways to transmit their anger at the suggestion he is about to sign a new two-year deal.
"Wenger Out" posters have been seen at World Cup qualifiers and Wrestlemania but Tuesday's surrealist performance outside the training ground, topped off with another stooge dressed as Wenger with a "fourth place trophy" and an unzippable coat, was the most extreme yet.
Without wanting to police emotions and behaviours, there are clearly ways to protest and there are clearly ways to protest. It's wildly unfair to label any and all acts of insurrection against Wenger as embarrassing. Gary Nevillewas wrong to describe a fan as an "idiot" when he brandished a banner reading "enough is enough time to go" during the 3-1 defeat to Chelsea in February. The message was blunt and, if not particularly respectful of Wenger's achievements, it was certainly not abusive.
At the weekend, there were jokes abounding on social media when it turned out that supporters had hired trucks to carry posters ahead of the 2-2 draw against Manchester City promoting the campaign for Wenger to go. Rather than being embarrassing, they were pretty effective in garnering publicity without overstepping any boundaries. Also plastered on them was the absolute rationale for why supporter protests are not only acceptable, but actually vital in the circumstances.
"Arsene is ultimately accountable to the fans,"said chief executive Ivan Gazidis in 2011. "If you are seeing the relationship between the fans and manager break down over time that is unsustainable."
With that statement featured on those trucks, Gazidis swerved any personal responsibility, or any collective responsibility on behalf of the board, and effectively placed Wenger's fate in the hands of the supporters. In effect it was the men paid vast salaries to make big decisions telling the people who paid the highest ticket prices going that if they ever wanted change, it would be down to them to force it from the ground up.
Six years later, is it any wonder that those supporters, who are fed up with a weak board apparently devoid of any intent to do anything significant about the club's slide from relevance, are so desperate to take action themselves? The trouble is finding the right way to express their frustration. It's a balancing act that's not always been skilfully negotiated.
There will be no hard and fast rules imparted here -- people will take their own view of the "Wexit" banner or dueling planes in the skies above West Bromwich -- but bringing along mini Atom and Humbers probably isn't the way forward if your aim is to provoke a sober debate about the future of the club. Neither iscalling for the head of a kit man and club institution who has been at Arsenal since 1985. Embarrassing the club and the vast majority of supporters isn't likely to be a productive way to advance your aims; any legitimate message quickly gets lost. And there is a legitimate message that can be expressed by many legitimate means.
For all his faults, though, Wenger is an intelligent and serious man who deserves an intelligent and serious response. On a very functional level, he wouldn't listen to any other kind. And when he drives into his place of work on a Tuesday morning only to see what looks like some kind of witless GCSE art project inspired by the inane depths of Twitter, who could blame him?
South Africa’s investment-grade credit status hangs by a thread after S&P Global Ratings cut the country’s debt to junk and Moody’s Investors Service placed it on review for a downgrade.
The state of play
S&P now rates South Africa’s foreign-currency debt BB+, one level below investment grade, with a negative outlook. Fitch Ratings and Moody’s assess the nation’s creditworthiness at BBB- and Baa2, one and two levels above sub-investment, respectively. Both have a negative outlook, meaning they’re more likely to lower than raise the credit score. At the same time, S&P reduced its rating for the nation’s local debt one step to BBB-, the lowest investment grade. Moody’s rates the local-currency debt at Baa2, two levels above junk, while Fitch’s assessment is BBB-, one rung above junk.
What happens next?
A one-step downgrade of the foreign-currency debt by Moody’s wouldn’t change the picture substantially, as South Africa would still be left with two investment-level ratings. A two-notch downgrade by Moody’s or a cut by Fitch would spark forced selling of foreign-currency bonds by investors that track investment-grade debt indexes.
On the local-currency front, it would require a one-step downgrade by Fitch and a two-notch cut by Moody’s, or another by S&P, to trigger forced selling from local-currency bond-index tracker funds. There is less danger of that happening immediately.
Why does it matter?
Bond indexes compiled by Bloomberg Barclays, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc., which are tracked by more than $2 trillion of institutional funds, have rules relating to the credit quality of constituents. Broadly speaking, those rules require an investment-grade rating, either from S&P (in the case of Citigroup’s World Government Bond Index) or from two of the three companies (in the case of the Bloomberg Barclays and JPMorgan emerging-market indexes). Hard-currency indexes, such as the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index and JP Morgan’s EMBIG gauges, look at the long-term foreign-currency ratings, while local-currency indexes like the WGBI focus on the local-currency rating.
Should South Africa lose its membership of these indexes, funds that track them would be forced to sell their holdings of South African bonds. In addition, funds that are mandated to hold investment-grade debt only would be forced to sell.
What’s at stake?
Foreign investors hold 36 percent of South Africa’s 1.74 trillion rand ($129 billion) of local-currency government bonds, according to the National Treasury’s February budget review. That means an amount of 623 billion rand is potentially at risk in a selloff, in addition to about $16 billion of debt denominated in foreign currencies. Foreign-currency bonds account for about 10 percent of South Africa’s total government debt of 2.2 trillion rand.
In practice, the amounts will probably be less. UBS Ltd. estimates that WGBI-tracking funds account for about 22 percent of non-resident bond holdings, or about $10 billion of South African local-currency debt, roughly the same amount as the current-account deficit. A forced sell-off by funds tracking the gauge could double the shortfall in nominal terms.
What are the precedents?
Turkish and Brazilian bonds fell after they were first downgraded to junk, in September 2016 and September 2015, respectively. Turkish local government debt lost 5.1 percent in the month after the nation was cut to Ba1 by Moody’s, the worst performance among 31 emerging markets monitored by Bloomberg. Its Eurobonds lost 2.4 percent, more than three times the average for developing-nation dollar notes in that period. Brazilian real-denominated government bonds dropped 0.73 percent in the four weeks after S&P moved it to BB+, while emerging-market local government bonds gained 2.7 percent on average.
By contrast, Russia’s assets outperformed after it was first cut to junk by S&P in January 2015. The country’s local debt and Eurobonds gained in the following month, while those of its emerging-market peers fell.
Under-pressure Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger reckons there's only one team in London -- and it's not Chelsea.
Wenger was responding to suggestions Alexis Sanchez could quit the Gunners to move to Stamford Bridge in the summer.
Is he right? ESPN FC's Arsenal and Chelsea bloggers sound off in the battle for London supremacy.
So, who's the only team in London?
Andrew Mangan: Wenger's comment came across like a man playing to the crowd. He knows he's under pressure, so why not try and alleviate that with a populist slogan that will go over well with fans who, for all the troubles at the moment, remain partisan?
The Arsenal manager is someone who has always highlighted the difficulties of having so many London derbies. Whether it's Chelsea or Crystal Palace, Spurs or QPR, there's always something a little more intense about a game against a team from the same city, so this soundbite was not something I take in any way seriously.
Mark Worrall: Wenger should have his own show on the Comedy Channel at the moment. He's box-office gold. Over at Chelsea, we just can't get enough of it. Wenger, Arsenal Fan TV ... the weekly meltdowns are fantastic.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the serious business of winning football games and challenging for the title, Antonio Conte is proving how important it is for a club to have someone at the helm who can unify players and supporters alike. One big team together. That's the buzz at Stamford Bridge right now. So, yeah, on that basis maybe there is only one team in London.
Who has had a greater impact on the Premier League?
AM: Chelsea have certainly had more success in recent years -- the progression they made after Roman Abramovich came on board is impossible to ignore. Obviously I'm biased, but I think Arsenal have done what they've done more organically -- and that's not to suggest there's only one way of running a club, but things have been built by the resources the club have generated themselves.
Although it's been too long since the last title, there have been two doubles under Wenger, that unbeaten season, and going back to the late '90s, early 2000s, the greatest rivalry in Premier League history, when Wenger and Arsenal were pitted against Sir Alex Ferguson and Manchester United.
I'm giving this one to the Gunners!
MW: I'm old enough to remember the days when Chelsea couldn't buy a win against Arsenal ... they can buy everything now. Joking aside, I think Andrew's right in respect of the fact the Gunners set a benchmark for success in the Premier League along with Manchester United. It's worth pointing out that although Chelsea were on the verge of bankruptcy when Abramovich bought the club, they were already a decent team, and had been for the best part of 10 years since Ken Bates appointed Glenn Hoddle, who was the catalyst for change in respect of player recruitment.
Think Ruud Gullit, Gianluca Vialli, Gianfranco Zola, Marcel Desailly and so on. Chelsea were trend-setters. Abramovich's money broke up the axis of domination that Arsenal and United enjoyed, which had to be a good thing for the game, and the Russian has continued to back the club and develop its infrastructure in a way that has brought a shed load of silverware. Arsenal seem mired in the past, and are getting almost Liverpool-like in respect of talking about history. Chelsea have been making history, not reliving it, for quite a while. I have to back my club here. Chelsea!
Which club has the greater pull for prospective players?
AM: At the moment you'd probably say Chelsea. Arsenal are a club that is almost always on the brink of crisis at the moment. The managerial situation is uncertain, the team look far from being able to compete for the biggest prizes and there's an air of underachievement at times.
Chelsea are competitive, have an interesting and dynamic modern manager, and they have the resources to pay far more in wages than Arsenal. So on that basis, it'd be a tough job to convince a player stuck between the two that North London is the place to be.
MW: Arsenal and Chelsea are both top clubs, but a top player wants to play for a top manager, and right now in Conte, the Blues have a massive edge here. They also have a pay structure which is geared to attract and retain the best talent, and are in the habitual business of winning things. It's a no-brainer.
Alexis: Come to the Bridge. You know it makes sense.
Alexis Sanchez or Eden Hazard?
AM: Sanchez. Hazard is a wonderful player, but it was clear last season he downed tools because of the Mourinho problems. He wasn't alone, to be fair, but even as difficult as things have been for Arsenal, you always get 100 percent on the pitch from Sanchez.
MW: I'd love to see Sanchez at Chelsea. He's the complete forward, can play on either flank or through the middle and can be relied on to tackle-back. Don't get me wrong, I think Hazard's a genius -- that solo goal against Arsenal was world class -- but the Belgium international has a habit of going through inexplicable fallow periods and losing interest. In an ideal world, I'd love to see Sanchez and Hazard lining up together for Chelsea, but if I could only go with one for next season, I'd take Sanchez.
What's the greater achievement: an Invincible season or being the first London team to win the European Cup?
AM: If Chelsea had been the first English team to win the European Cup, you might have a case to at least debate this issue, but for me it's not even close. I would dearly love for Arsenal to win the Champions League. It's a trophy that's missing from the cabinet for a club of this size, but the unbeaten season remains a unique achievement that nobody has come near repeating.
Someone wins the Champions League every year, and the year they did it, Chelsea had rubbish Bayern penalties to thank!
In seriousness, it is something they can always crow about until such time as Arsenal win it -- don't hold your breath on that by the way -- but the Invincibles did something that nobody else has, so they win this one.
MW: I think that if Arsenal's Invincible season could be transformed by Gunners fans into a wind-up chant as effective as Chelsea's "We're the only team in London with the European Cup," or "Champions of Europe, you'll never sing that," then the football world would be regularly reminded about what an astonishing achievement it was.
It only came to the fore again this season when the Blues went on that 13-game winning streak; a lot of younger fans had no real sense of perspective about it. I tip my hat to Arsenal. Well done, you win, Invincibles is the best achievement ... but remember: "We're the only team in London with the European Cup."
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker hit back at Donald Trump’s support for the U.K.’s withdrawal from the European Union, saying that he would champion American states that wanted to secede from the union. “The newly elected U.S. president was happy that Brexit was taking place and was asking other countries to do the same,” Juncker told delegates from his pan-EU Christian Democrat group in Malta. “If he goes on like that, I’m going to promote the independence of Ohio and the exit of Texas.”
Whether known to Juncker or not, Texas has long been associated with autonomous leanings, having declared itself the independent Republic of Texas in 1836 after seceding from Mexico, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. It didn’t join the U.S. until 1845. Juncker’s tone belies the anger among EU chiefs that President Trump has stoked the Brexit fire and, with it, egged on other countries to follow the U.K.’s lead.
‘New Beginning’
Leaders from the European People’s Party, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU President Tusk, were meeting a day after Prime Minister Theresa May officially notified the bloc that Britain is withdrawing, starting two years of negotiations. “Brexit isn’t the end of everything, we must consider it to be a new beginning,” Juncker said.
The U.K.’s decision will make the EU “more determined,” Tusk said, adding that the bloc would remain “united in the future, also during the difficult negotiations” with the U.K. While Merkel didn’t mention Brexit in her speech directly, she also chose to focus on unity. “Many people are saying the world and Europe are going a bit off the rails,” said Merkel, who as leader of the EU’s largest economy will have the biggest say on the final deal the bloc strikes with the U.K. “If we act together in Europe, we can do it much better than if we do things on our own in a world that isn’t sleeping.”Continue Reading
