What Was Richard Herd's Net Worth Before He Died?

Prolific actor Richard Herd has passed away at age 87. The veteran actor was a staple in the entertainment industry appearing in everything from Seinfeld to Jordan Peele‘s horror drama, Get Out.

The Boston native who was a life long fan of the Boston Red Sox also appeared in Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Renegades, The O.C. NYPD Blue, ER, and Dallas throughout his five-decade-long career.

Here’s what we know about the Shameless actor’s cause of death, his favorite role, and his net worth prior to his death.

Inside Richard Herd’s cause of death

Amid the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Herd’s representatives wanted to be extremely transparent about his cause of death. CNN is reporting that the All The President’s Men actor died on May 26, 2020, of cancer-related causes. Though they did not specify any further, we do know that Herd passed away at his home in Los Angeles, California.

Herd credited a childhood illness to launching his career in Hollywood. “I had osteomyelitis, a serious bone infection, and almost didn’t survive,” he told The Patriot Ledger in a 2015 interview. “I became ill in second grade and went to the Cotting School, as it’s now known, in Lexington, for young people with various ailments. I was in and out of Boston Children’s Hospital. Lying there, month after month, you become very stoic. It really stimulated my imagination, and I think actually helped me later as an actor.”

In fact, Herd was one of the very first people to receive penicillin in the 1930s.

Richard Herd said that ‘Seinfeld’ was his favorite job

RELATED: ‘Seinfeld’: Larry David Threatened to Quit Over the Iconic ‘Chinese Restaurant’ Episode

From 1995-1998 for a total of 11 episodes, Herd appeared on the hit sitcom Seinfeld as George Costanza’s (Jason Alexander) boss, Mr. Wilhelm. He said out all of the jobs he had in Hollywood, this was his all-time favorite.

Seinfeld was one of the best jobs I ever had,” he told The Beaver County Times. “There were no ‘stars’ on that show, they were all genuinely nice people to work with. It got me a tremendous amount of recognition and still does because it plays all the time.”

He also spoke warmly about his character, Wilhelm. “He was always doing things that never got done and always going over to Mr. Steinbrenner and apologizing to him,” he said in a 2016 interview. “Some days, he had clear days, other days he didn’t. He was very vulnerable. He had an odd sense of humor. … He was way out there on occasion. I’ve taken a few trips out there, so I know all about it.”

When he snagged the role, Herd said he was surprised to get the role on Seinfeld because he had revealed he was a Red Sox fan during his audition. “It was easy. It was fun. It was very inviting,” he recalled. “And as I left, I turned around and said, ‘Look, I have to tell you this. I hope it doesn’t make a difference, but I’m a Red Sox fan.’ And they all threw their scripts at me. The next day they said, ‘Come on out and play with us.’”

Richard Herd’s net worth before he died

Though there is not much information about Herd’s net worth prior to his death, Trends Celebs Now is estimating that the late actor was worth somewhere between $1 million and $5 million prior to his death. He is survived by his wife of 40 years, Patricia Crowder, and his four children.

Source: Read Full Article

What is Dominic Cummings' son's name?

DOMINIC CUMMINGS made a public statement on May 25, addressing the journey that he and his family made to Durham amid the coronavirus lockdown.

The PM's senior aide defended his actions in the statement which he made in the grounds of No.10. What did he say in his statement?

⚠️ Read our coronavirus live blog for the latest news & updates


"Good afternoon, thank you for coming. Yesterday I gave a full account to the Prime Minister of my actions between the 27th of March and the 14th of April what I thought and did.

He's asked me to repeat that account directly to you. I know that millions of people in this country have been suffering, thousands have died.

Many are angry about what they have seen in the media about my actions.

I want to clear up the confusions and misunderstandings that I can. In retrospect, I should have made this statement earlier.

It's been a year since I said anything on television but I will do my best to answer questions after I have explained what happened.

I also should clarify that I am not here to speak on behalf of the government or the Prime Minister. I am explaining my own actions and my own thinking.

The Prime Minister is giving a press conference later and he will answer questions concerning government policy.

Around midnight on Thursday the 26th of March I spoke to the Prime Minister.

He told me that he tested positive for Covid. We discussed the national emergency arrangements for No.10 given his isolation and what I would do in No.10 the next day.

The next morning I went to work as usual. I was in a succession of meetings about this emergency.

I suddenly got a call from my wife who was at home looking after our four-year-old child.

She told me she suddenly fell badly ill, she vomited and felt like she might pass out and there would be nobody to look after our child.

None of our usual childcare options were available.

They were alone in the house. After very briefly telling officials in No.10 what had happened I immediately left the building, ran to a car and drove home.

This was reported by the media at the time who saw me run out of No.10.

After a couple of hours, my wife felt a bit better though many critical things at work and she asked me to return in the afternoon and I did.

That evening I returned home and discussed the situation with my wife. She was ill. She might have Covid though she did not have a cough or a fever.

At this point, most of those who I work with most closely including the Prime Minister himself and others who sit within 15 feet of me every day either had had symptoms and had returned to work or were absent with symptoms. I thought there was a distinct probability that I caught the disease.

I had a few conflicting thoughts in my mind.

First I was worried that if my wife and I were both seriously ill, possibly hospitalised, there was nobody in London that we could reasonably ask to look after our child that expose themselves to Covid.

My wife had felt on the edge of not being able to look after him safely a few hours earlier. I was thinking 'what if the same or worse happens to me? There is nobody here that I could reasonably ask to help.'

The regulations made clear I believe that risks to the health of a small child are an exceptional situation and I had a way of dealing with this that would minimised risk to others.

Second  I thought that if I did not develop symptoms then I might be able to return to work to help deal with the crisis. There were ongoing discussions about testing government staff in order to keep people like me working rather than isolating.

At this point, on the Friday, advisors such as myself had not been included on the list of who could be tested. But it was possible, it might change the following week.

Therefore, I thought that after testing negative I could continue working. In fact, this did not change and special advisors were not tested and I've never been tested.

Third, there have been numerous false stories in the media about my actions and statements regarding Covid. In particular, there was stories suggesting that I had opposed lockdown and even that I didn't care about many deaths. For years, I have warned of the dangers of pandemics.

Last year I wrote about the possible threat of coronaviruses and the urgent need for planning. The truth is, that I had argued for lockdown. I did not oppose it.

But these stories had created a very bad atmosphere around my home. I was subject to threats of violence.

People came to my house shouting threats. There were posts on social media, encouraging attacks. There were many media reports on TV showing pictures of my house.

I was also worried that given the severity of this emergency, this situation would get worse. And I was worried about the possibility of leaving my wife and child at home all day and off into the night while I worked in No.10.

I thought the best thing to do in all the circumstances was to drive to an isolated cottage on my father's farm. At this farm, my parents live in one house.

My sister and her two children live in another house, and there was a separate cottage roughly 50 metres away from either of them."

I was also worried that given the severity of this emergency, this situation would get worse.

And I was worried about the possibility of leaving my wife and child at home all day and off into the night while I worked in No.10. I thought the best thing to do in all the circumstances was to drive to an isolated cottage on my father's farm.

At this farm, my parents live in one house. My sister and her two children live in another house, and there was a separate cottage roughly 50 metres away from either of them.

My tentative conclusion on the Friday evening was this: if we are both unable to look after our child, then my sister or nieces can look after him. My nieces are 17 and 20.

They are old enough to look after him, but also young enough to be in the safest category. And they had extremely kindly volunteered to do so if needed.

But, I thought, if I do not develop symptoms and there is a testing regime in place at work, I could return to work if I tested negative.

In that situation, I could leave my wife and child behind in a safe place, safe in the form of support from family for shopping in emergencies, safe in the sense of being away from home which had become a target and also safe for everybody else because they were completely isolated on a farm and could not infect anybody.

Contrary to some media reports, there are no neighbours in the normal sense of the word. The nearest other homes are roughly half a mile away.

So in this scenario, I thought that they could stay there for a few weeks. I could go back to work, help colleagues and everybody, including the general public, would be safe.

I did not ask the prime minister about this decision.

He was ill himself and he had huge problems to deal with.

Every day, I have to exercise my judgment about things like this and decide what to discuss with him. I thought I would speak to him when the situation clarified over coming days, including whether I had symptoms and whether there were tests available.

Arguably, this was a mistake, and I understand that some will say that I should've spoken to the prime minister before deciding what to do.

So I drove the three of us up to Durham last night, arriving roughly at midnight.

I did not stop on the way. When I worked the next morning, Saturday the 28th of March, I was in pain and clearly had Covid symptoms, including a bad headache and a serious fever.

Clearly, I could not return to work any time soon. For a day or two, we were both ill. I was in bed.

My wife was ill, but not ill enough that she needed emergency help. I got worse. She got better.

During the night of Thursday, the 2nd of April, my child woke up. He threw up and had a bad fever.

He was very distressed. We took medical advice which was to call 999.

An ambulance was sent, they assessed my child and said he must go to hospital.

I could barely stand up. My wife went with him in the ambulance. I stayed at home. He stayed the night in the hospital. In the morning, my wife called to say that he had recovered, seemed back to normal. Doctors had tested him for Covid and said that they should return home.

There were no taxis. I drove to the hospital, picked them up, then returned home. I did not leave the car or have any contact with anybody at any point on this short trip.

The hospital's, I don't know what, roughly five miles or something away two miles, three miles four miles, something like that. A few days later, the hospital said that he tested negative.

After I started to recover, one day in the second week, I tried to walk outside the house.

At one point the three of us walked into woods owned by my father, next to the cottage that I was staying in. Some people saw us in these woods from a distance, but we had no interaction with them.

We had not left the property. We were on private land.

By Saturday, the 11th of April, I was still feeling weak and exhausted. But other than that, I had no Covid symptoms. I thought that I'd be able to return to work the following week, possibly part-time.

It was obvious that the situation was extremely serious.

The Prime Minister had been gravely ill. Colleagues were dealing with huge problems and many were ill or isolating.

I felt like I ought to return to work if possible, given I was now recovering in order to relieve the intense strain at No. 10. That Saturday, I sought expert medical advice.

I explained our family's symptoms and all the timings, and I asked if it was safe to return to work on Monday, Tuesday, seek child care and so on. I was told that it was safe and I could return to work and seek childcare.

On Sunday 12 April, 15 days after I had first displayed symptoms, I decided to return to work.

My wife was very worried, particularly given my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease. She didn't want to risk a nearly 300-mile drive with our child, given how ill I had been.

We agreed that we should go for a short drive to see if I could drive safely.

We drove for roughly half an hour and ended up on the outskirts of Barnard Castle town.

We did not visit the castle. We did not walk around the town. We parked by a river.

My wife and I discussed the situation. We agreed that I could drive safely, we should turn around, go home. I felt a bit sick.

We walked about 10 to 15 metres from the car to the riverbank nearby. We sat there for about 15 minutes. We had no interactions with anybody. I felt better. We returned the car.

An elderly gentleman walking nearby appeared to recognise me.

My wife wished him Happy Easter from a distance, but we had no other interaction.

We headed home. On the way home, our child needed the toilet.

He was in the back seat of the car. We pulled over to the side of the road, my wife and child jumped out into the woods by the side of the road. They were briefly outside. I briefly joined them.

They played for a little bit and then I got out of the car, went outside. We were briefly in the woods. We saw some people at a distance.

But at no point did we break any social distancing rules. We then got back in the car and went home.

We agreed that if I continued to improve then the next day, we should return to London and I would go back to work. We returned to London on the evening of Monday 13 April, Easter Monday.

I went back to work in No. 10 the next morning. At no point between arriving and leaving Durham did any of the three of us enter my parents' house or my sister's house.

Our only exchanges were shouted conversations at a distance. My sister shopped for us and left everything outside.

In the last few days, there have been many media reports that I returned to Durham after 13 April.

All these stories are false. There is a particular report that I returned there on 19 April.

Photos and data on my phone prove this to be false. And local CCTV, if it exists, would also prove that I'm telling the truth that I was in London on that day. I was not in Durham.

During this two-week period, my mother's brother died with Covid.

There are media reports that this had some influence on my behaviour. These reports are false. This private matter did not affect my movements. None of us saw him. None of us attended his funeral.

In this very complex situation, I tried to exercise my judgment the best I could.

I believe that in all circumstances I behaved reasonably and legally, balancing the safety of my family and the extreme situation in No.10 and the public interest in effective government to which I could contribute.

I was involved in decisions affecting millions of people, and I thought that I should try to help as much as I could do.

I can understand that some people will argue that I should have stayed at my home in London throughout.

I understand these views. I know the intense hardship and sacrifice that the entire country has had to go through. However, I respectfully disagree.

The legal rules inevitably do not cover all circumstances, including those that I found myself in.

I thought and I think today that the rules, including those regarding small children in extreme circumstances, allowed me to exercise my judgment about the situation I found myself in, including the way that my London home had become a target – and all the complexity of the situation.

I accept, of course, that there is room for reasonable disagreement about this.

I could also understand some people think I should not have driven at all anywhere.

But I had taken medical expert medical advice. It was 15 days after symptoms.

I'd been told that I could return to work and employ childcare.

I think it was reasonable and sensible to make a short journey before embarking on a five-hour drive to see whether I was in a fit state to do this.

The alternative was to stay in Durham rather than going back to work and contributing to the government's efforts.

I believe I made the right judgment, though I can understand that others may disagree with that.

I've explained all of the above to the Prime Minister.

At some point during the first week where we were both sick and in bed, I mentioned to him what I had done.

Unsurprisingly, given the condition we were in, neither of us remember the conversation in any detail.

I did not make my movements public at the time because my London home was already a target.

I did not believe that I was obliged to make my parents' and my sister's home a target for harassment as well. I understand that millions of people have seen media coverage of this issue.

I know that millions have endured awful hardship, including personal tragedies, over the past few months, and people are suffering every day.

And I know the British people hate the idea of unfairness.

I wanted to explain what I thought, what I did and why, over this period, because I think that people like me who helped to make the rules should be accountable for their actions."

Source: Read Full Article

What time is the coronavirus press briefing today, Saturday May 23 and who is speaking? – The Sun

THE UK Government will address the country today (May 23) as part of the daily coronavirus briefings slightly before 4pm, to be led by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps.

The daily press conferences aim to inform the public on any crucial decisions being taken by the Government to combat Covid-19.

⚠️ Read our coronavirus live blog for the latest news & updates

What time is today's coronavirus press briefing?

The briefing will be held from Downing Street slightly earlier today and is scheduled to kick off at 3.45pm.

Who is speaking?

A Government minister will address the country via a live broadcast.

It has been reported that Transport Secretary Grant Shapps will be speaking today.

How can I watch it?

The press conference briefings are broadcast live by the BBC at 5pm weekdays and 4pm weekends.

You can also watch the live broadcast on the Government's official YouTube page.

We can keep you up to date on what is being said at the press conference by following our coronavirus live blog, for live updates on the briefing.

What was said during yesterday's press briefing?

Home Secretary Priti Patel addressed the nation at the coronavirus press conference.

She was joined by Paul Lincoln, head of the UK's Border Force, and Sir Patrick Vallance, chief scientific adviser to the UK government.

Priti Patel started the address by revealing the Government is enforcing a new quarantine measure to prevent a second wave of Covid-19.

This new measure means all visitors entering the UK will have to self-isolate for 14 days starting from June 8.

Patel announced spot checks will take place, with arrivals being asked to provide addresses and contact numbers to enable these to take place.

A fixed penalty of £1,000 will be put in place for any rule-breakers.

Head of UK border force Paul Lincoln added that medical professionals will be amongst those not required to self-isolate for 14 days and that in extreme circumstances entry to the UK maybe refused to certain people who don't comply with quarantine measures.


Don't miss the latest news and figures – and essential advice for you and your family.

To receive The Sun's Coronavirus newsletter in your inbox every tea time, sign up here.
To follow us on Facebook, simply 'Like' our Coronavirus page.
Get Britain's best-selling newspaper delivered to your smartphone or tablet each day – find out more.

Priti Patel then continued to say: “The answer as to why we're bringing in these measures now is simple: It is to protect that hard-won progress and prevent a devastating resurgence in a second wave of the virus.”

The Home Secretary said the Government will work hard to support the international travel and tourism industry recover from the effects of this pandemic and reopen the industry in a responsible way.

Sir Patrick then suggested that the UK had only hit an "artificial peak" and reiterated that social distancing must still be maintained.

Grant Shapps also confirmed ministers are looking at "travel bridges" between countries with low Covid infections.

The Transport Secretary said that the Government was looking at allowing people to fly between countries where the spread of the virus is low.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock previously told This Morning that summer holidays would likely be "cancelled", adding: "I think it’s unlikely that big lavish international holidays are going to be possible for this summer."

Source: Read Full Article

What are the top public high schools in the U.S.?

Fox Business Flash top headlines for May 22

Fox Business Flash top headlines are here. Check out what’s clicking on FoxBusiness.com.

Prepping for the right college may mean buckling down for four years from 9th to 12th grade. However, the question then becomes: Where do you go to get the best education that will prepare you for the future?

Continue Reading Below

To help, U.S. News ranked the top best public high schools in the nation. The rankings include data on more than 24,000 public high schools across the nation with nearly 18,000 schools being evaluated based on their performance on state assessments and how well they prepare students for college.


Although the highest-ranked schools are scattered throughout the country, sitting atop the coveted list is Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Virginia.



The school garnered the title due to its best-in-state performance in English and math assessments, 100 percent graduation rate and its top ranking in college readiness, U.S. News revealed.

Although Virginia lays claim to the number one spot, roughly 63 percent of high schools in the San Jose, California metro area reside in the top 25 percent of the national rankings. Meanwhile, half of the public high schools in Massachusetts also sit within the top 25 percent of the national rankings, the outlet revealed. However, the top 100 schools on the list span across 29 states, according to the report.


Here are the top ten public high schools based on U.S. News:


Source: Read Full Article

What time is What's the Matter with Tony Slattery? on BBC Two tonight?

TONY Slattery had his big break in the 1980s on the show Whose Line Is It Anyway.

But the star disappeared from the public eye while battling with a cocaine addiction, and this documentary explores his issues with addiction and his childhood abuse.

What time is What's the Matter with Tony Slattery? on BBC Two tonight?

What's the Matter with Tony Slattery? is on TONIGHT (Thursday, May 21) on BBC Two at 9pm.

Tony Slattery was part of the Cambridge Footlight generation that included Stephen Fry and Emma Thompson.

In 1996 it was reported that he had a breakdown and he disappeared from showbiz.

Tonight's documentary will bridge the gap between then and Tony Slattery now.

What is the documentary about?

The documentary is a one-off exploration into Tony Slattery's personal struggles.

Now aged 60, Tony is trying to find answers regarding his mental health.

Tony was diagnosed with depression and at the time of his breakdown it was thought that he might have had bipolar disorder, but this was never said for certain.

In hopes of getting an accurate diagnosis, he visits expert Professor Guy Goodwin.

While Tony no longer struggles with drugs, he does still have a problem with alcohol which the documentary will look at.

The show will deal with sensitive issues as Tony's childhood trauma is discussed as he believes it is connected with his mental health battles today.

In the past he has shared that aged 8 he was raped by a priest, though never told his family.

He believes this contributed more to his mental health issues and alcohol dependency than people realised.

Tony visits other mental health and trauma experts and at the end of the show, he gets a call – hopefully revealing the diagnosis he needs to get the right help.

The documentary is airing during Mental Health Week which aims to normalise issues around mental health and encourage people to speak and seek help.

Stephen Fry and Tony's partner Mark will feature in the programme too.

Source: Read Full Article

What is a Mbira? Google Doodle’s musical instrument featured on today’s homepage – The Sun

A MBIRA, featured on Thursday's Google homepage, is Zimbabwe's national instrument and has been a major part of the African country's culture for centuries.

Here is what you need to know about the mbira.

What is a Mbira and where does it come from?

The instrument usually includes of 22 to 28 metal keys mounted on a gwariva (hardwood soundboard) made from wood of the mubvamaropa tree, according to the non-profit MBIRA.org.

"Although the metal keys were originally smelted directly from rock containing iron ore, now they are made of steel from bed springs, bicycle spokes, car seat springs, and other recycled or new steel materials," according to the organization.

Rarely, a brass or copper key may be included."

It is played with two thumbs stroking down and the right forefinger stroking up.

The mbira is a traditional instrument of the Shona people of Zimbabwe.

There are 10 million Shona around the world, but most of them are in the South African country.

"The instrument features prominently in a variety of Shona ceremonies, and it remains a vital link to the past through songs that have been passed down over hundreds of years," according to Google.

"While the mbira was traditionally played by men, Zimbabwean women have increasingly taken up the instrument in recent years and continue to push its timeless sound in new and contemporary directions."

The mbira is available on Amazon for about $40.

What is Google Doodle?

Google Doodle is a special daily alteration of the iconic logo on Google's homepage.

The logo on display Thursday features a mbira and a "play" button that allows the user to listen to music that was produced by the instrument.

"Today’s interactive Doodle celebrates Zimbabwe’s national instrument, the mbira, as Zimbabwe’s Culture Week begins," Google writes.

"Try your own hand at this instrument that has been played for over 1,000 years, while experiencing a story as told through the lens of a Zimbabwean girl who learns to play the mbira."

Google Doodle usually illustrates holidays, events, special achievements and "notable" historical figures.

International Vyshyvanka Day was recently celebrated as well.

Vyshyvanka – which means embroidered shirts in Ukrainian – honors the nation's folk tradition for the clothing item on the third Thursday of May every year.

Source: Read Full Article

What is an elder law attorney?

Trump considering mandating coronavirus testing at nursing homes

President Trump says if states have the capacity to test nursing homes, they should act on it.

Elder law attorneys, also known as elder care attorneys, handle legal matters and planning for senior citizens as they prepare for the ends of their lives.

Continue Reading Below

“They assist seniors in a large and diverse array of legal tasks, which encompasses retirement planning, estate planning, creating wills and durable power of attorney, preparing for long-term care, appointing guardianship, creating trusts, and in some cases, Medicaid planning and appeals,” according to the American Council on Aging.


The costs for their services vary based what kind of work a client needs, and the extent of it. There are different kinds of elder law, and most attorneys don’t cover every aspect, according to FindLaw.com.

Female home caregiver talking with senior woman, sitting in living room and listening to her carefully.

The National Academy for Elder Law Attorneys wrote on its website that lawyers also vary in ways in which they charge fees or how often they bill clients. While some charge hourly, others will opt for a flat rate.


But clients should also be wary of out-of-pocket expenses, such as court and deposition fees or costs for postage and messenger services, according to NAELA.


Some elder law attorneys will ask clients to pay a retainer – which is money upfront that is then put toward billed costs that accrue over time.


Source: Read Full Article

What time is Harry's Heroes: Euro Having a Laugh on tonight and what's it about?

FOOTBALLING legends put their boots back on to see if they've still got what it takes for Harry's Heroes: Euro Having a Laugh, airing TONIGHTat 9pm on ITV.

King of the Jungle Harry Redknapp takes a team of out of shape ex-England players on a European tour, as they prepare for a rematch against the German Legends. The boys end up in a curry house on the first night – what could possibly go wrong?

What time is Harry's Heroes: Euro Having a Laugh on tonight?

The show is a follow-up to 2019's Harry's Heroes: The Full English, where ex-Premier League manager Harry, 73, coached former pro footballers to win 4-2 against Germany's legends team.

The lads are back for a rematch on their own turf and the new series will see the I'm A Celeb winner's team warm-up against France and Italy, before hoping to score another win against rivals Germany.

The first episode of the three-part series will air TONIGHT, Monday, May 18, at 9pm on ITV.

The second and third episodes will continue tomorrow and Wednesday evening at the same time.

You can catch up on all three episodes once they have been shown on television on ITV Player.

What's Harry's Heroes: Euro Having a Laugh about?

Harry Redknapp returns to whip a team of ageing 1990s England football players back into shape for another match against their German equivalents.

The team go on tour across Europe, starting in France where Harry wants the lads to be on a detox and cook their own healthy food.

But it doesn't take long before they hit the beers and end up at the curry house.

Laughs aside, the show features honest chats between the former football stars about their mental health battles since retiring from professional sport.

Ex-Arsenal player Paul Merson credits the first series with helping him turn his life around after personal struggles with alcohol and gambling.

The team head to Paris for some warm-up matches, including a game against a male nudist side…

With Neil 'Razor' Ruddock on doctor’s orders to tone down his indulgent lifestyle, the first episode follows his battle to get fit and his arguments with his wife, Harry Redknapp and his teammates as they try to help him.

Who stars in Harry's Heroes: Euro Having a Laugh?

2018 King of the Jungle Harry Redknapp returns as the teams' manager as he takes on the task of trying to get the former England pros back into shape for their big match.

Many of the players from the first series are back for the grudge match including goalkeeper David Seaman and footballers Paul Merson, Neil ‘Razor’ Ruddock, Ray Parlour, Rob Lee, Lee Sharpe, Matt Le Tissier andMark Chamberlain.

Former Liverpool striker Michael Owen steps in for Robbie Fowler this year and Aston Villa star Lee Hendrie also joins the team.

The England legends also sign up new recruit Vinnie Jones, even though the midfielder won nine caps for Wales.

Source: Read Full Article

What will happen to Mary-Kate Olsen’s net worth after her divorce?

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen may be two of the most famous (and gorgeous) siblings in Hollywood despite leaving the spotlight behind, which means that fans are still intrigued by every aspect of the twins’ lives. That includes Mary-Kate Olsen’s marriage to Olivier Sarkozy, a French investment banker who is also the half-brother of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy (and who happens to be quite a bit older than the actress — she was 29 when they tied the knot, while he was 46).

The couple was married in November 2015 — in a ceremony that famously featured “bowls of cigarettes” for their guests — but by May 2020, the relationship had broken down and news came out that the two were getting a divorce. While that obviously stirred up plenty of questions regarding what had gone wrong and what Olsen would be doing next, it also left many wondering what the split would mean for the super-rich couple’s individual assets and how it would affect Olsen’s formidable fortune.

Mary-Kate Olsen had an 'ironclad prenup' with Olivier Sarkozy

When a marriage fails and a couple heads toward a divorce, things can get complicated. Not only are there sensitive feelings to consider, but there are also plenty of practical aspects to address. There are belongings to split up, possible custody issues to work out, and financial matters to finesse. The latter tidbit can be a particularly tricky topic, especially when you happen to be wealthy, which is the case with Mary-Kate Olsen and her ex, Olivier Sarkozy.

Celebrity Net Worth estimates that the former actress and fashion entrepreneur has a whopping $250 million to her name, compared to the $60 million that Sarkozy is thought to be worth. While they both obviously have a lot to lose, the star’s money should be safe thanks to the fact that she signed an “ironclad prenup” before she got married, a source told Us Weekly. “Her business interests and fortune are protected.”

Olsen, who seems to be pretty savvy and perfectly willing to stand up for herself in contentious circumstances, is apparently “requesting their prenuptial agreement be enforced,” according to Us. While the split apparently got “ugly,” it sounds as if the star will come out of this just fine — and with her fortune likely fully intact.

Source: Read Full Article

What are the new fines for coronavirus lockdown rule breakers? – The Sun

CORONAVIRUS lockdown fines have been increased as the government attempts to keep Britain on course as people begin to return to work.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced fines would be going up when he addressed the nation on Sunday, May 10.

⚠️ Read our coronavirus live blog for the latest news & updates

What can I be fined for?

The new fines are for anyone who continues to flout lockdown restrictions despite measures being slightly eased on Wednesday, May 13.

Eased rules mean you can now spend "unlimited" time exercising outside so long as you respect social distancing and do not meet up with more than one other person from a different household.

Brits can now also drive to outdoor spaces such as the countryside or beach for exercise and other outdoor activities.

People have also been encouraged to go back to work if they can safely and if they cannot work from home.

Enforcement will be in place however for people who do things such as meeting up with more than one person.

So you can be fined for the same breaches as before May 13, aside from the very specific examples of tweaks to the rules laid out by the PM.

Ministers released the updated legislation, known as Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, to coincide with lockdown changes on May 13.

Police enforcement and fines are being toughened to "reflect the increased risk to others of breaking the rules as people are returning to work and school".

People can be fined for being outside without “reasonable excuse” and pubs or restaurants could also be fined for selling food and drink to be consumed on the premises.

You could also be fined for breaching the different coronavirus regulations in place in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

In the 50-page plan laid out by Mr Johnson for the coming months, the government said it was "examining more stringent enforcement measures for non-compliance, as it has seen in many other countries".

It failed to provide further specific examples of fines for people flouting the rules, or how stricter enforcement would work in practice.

Over the weekend, police in London said they were fighting a "losing battle" to get people to follow the rules.

Hot weather has seen groups flocking to parks and not respecting social distancing as fears continue over the threat of a second wave.

A more widespread easing of lockdown will not occur until the government is satisfied that it has control of the virus.

John Apter, the national chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: "What we need from the prime minister and the government now is clear and unambiguous messaging and guidance, explaining what exactly is expected of the public, so that my colleagues can do their level best to police it."

More than 9000 fines have been issued by police for lockdown breaches – including excuses such as driving to pick up a new boat, and going to buy drugs.

How much can I be fined?

Lockdown flouters now face a minimum fine of £100 if they are found to be breaking the rules.

New legislation laid out by Mr Johnson saw fines nearly double from the original £60 on-the-spot charges that could be issued by police.

Fines will also be doubled for each offence an individual commits up to a total of £3,200.

The charges however remain unchanged in Scotland as the government said the number of people fined for flouting was "proportionately lower than in England".

Fines also remain unchanged in Wales from the original rules, continuing with the cap of £960.

If you pay the new fine within 14 days, it will be halved to £50.

Mr Johnson said: "You must obey the rules on social distancing and to enforce those rules we will increase the fines for the small minority who break them."

What happens if I fail to pay the fine?

The fine is not a criminal conviction, but those who do not pay could wind up a magistrates' court and then face a larger fine.

You could also be taken to court for failing to provide your name in an attempt to dodge the fixed penalty notice.

The government released new lockdown guidelines on May 13 and said police will only use fines as a "last resort" – instead trying to "engage, explain and encourage".

National Police Chiefs’ Council chairman Martin Hewitt said: "The efforts of the public mean police officers have rarely had to enforce the government regulations so far.

"I am confident the vast majority will continue to do their bit and follow guidance in this next stage.

"We are all now able to spend much more time outdoors and each of us need to take responsibility for doing that within the social restrictions set out by the government.

"Our approach will continue use common sense and discretion, and to engage, explain, encourage and, only as a last resort, enforce."

Source: Read Full Article