TASK DEFINITION: Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: "The city of Fort Lauderdale’s latest attempt to regulate outdoor homeless feedings made international news when police nabbed ""Chef Arnold"" -- a 90-year-old caught in the act of such a public feeding. ""One of the police officers said, 'Drop that plate right now,' as if I were carrying a weapon,"" Arnold Abbott said, recalling his early November arrest for the Associated Press. Multiple news reports -- and Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report -- recounted the tale of Abbott’s arrest, which reignited a long-running debate about how the city should handle the homeless population downtown and at the beach. On Nov. 5, Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jack Seiler issued a statement in which he said he wanted to ""set the record straight"" about the city’s services for homeless. He said that the media had misrepresented the facts. ""Contrary to reports,"" Seiler wrote, ""the City of Fort Lauderdale is not banning groups from feeding the homeless."" Seiler said outdoor feeding is legal, but added that a new city law regulates the activity. Then Seiler addressed the situation regarding Abbott: ""At two recent outdoor food distributions, citations were rightly issued for non-compliance with the process enacted to ensure public health and safety. Contrary to what was reported in the media, no one was taken into custody. ..."" As the public-relations crisis escalated, Seiler gave multiple interviews to the media. On CNN Nov. 11, Seiler said Abbott ""was not arrested and taken into custody."" At PolitiFact Florida we agree with Seiler’s goal of setting the record straight. Was Abbott taken into custody? Fort Lauderdale’s laws about the homeless Abbott’s battle with the city has brought notoriety to Seiler, a former state representative who has been mentioned as a future statewide candidate for the Democrats. Seiler faces re-election to a third term in March. So far, no one has filed to run against him. Abbott, who founded an interfaith volunteer organization Love Thy Neighbor to help the homeless, has been battling city leaders for more than a decade. In 1999, the city tried to ban him from holding picnics for the homeless at the beach, offering him an alternative site miles away from downtown. But Abbott prevailed in court when a judge ruled that the city had violated his religious rights and that the city’s new location was too remote. Abbott resumed his feedings and resumed them in visible locations in Stranahan Park in downtown and along the beach. The battle has continued in recent years, with the commission passing a series of laws that attempted to regulate the homeless population, including a ban on soliciting for money at intersections and tougher laws against defecating in public. City officials, including Seiler, have argued that while the homeless should have access to services, including meals, they have heard complaints from some businesses and residents about the homeless population in downtown. Advocates have decried city officials for cracking down on the homeless with a series of laws. At an Oct. 21 meeting, the commission approved the ordinance about outdoor food distribution over the objection of protesters. The ordinance, approved by the Commission 4-1, codified a list of rules for outdoor food distribution, including that sites must be 500 feet away from residential areas, have bathrooms or portable toilets, equipment for hand washing and consent of the owner. The law allows indoor feedings at houses of worship. ""You have to balance the interests of everybody in the community,"" Seiler told PolitiFact Florida. ""What we always try to do is make sure everybody gets to enjoy our parks. Every single thing we have done with the ordinance is a balance."" But while the law itself doesn’t technically ban outdoor feedings, it raises the bar for groups such as Abbott’s in a way that makes it almost impossible to clear. (Abbott argues that the requirement that he get a port-a-potty should be moot since a public restroom is nearby and he says volunteers wash their hands before feedings and use gloves.) At the time of Seiler’s statement, Abbott had three run-ins with law enforcement related to the outdoor feedings: on Oct. 6, Nov. 2 and Nov. 5, police reports show. (The October arrest predated the new ordinance but the city already had a separate law banning social services in the parks.) On the first two occasions, Abbott was given a warning but then continued with the feedings. The third time, Abbott agreed to end the food distribution that day, police reports say. In none of the three instances was he handcuffed or taken to jail. Instead, he was given notices to appear in court. (In one police report, it states that Abbott shook the police officer’s hand before he left.) At least one other person helping with the feedings was also arrested in a similar manner. A city spokesman told PolitiFact Florida that the case stemming from the Nov. 2 arrest has been filed in court. The city has generally avoided referring to Abbott’s case as an ""arrest,"" but his attorney John David said that just because it’s not a ""custodial arrest"" doesn’t mean it’s not an arrest. For minor crimes, police use this type of arrest and give defendants notices to appear as long as the person has a connection to the area and is likely to show up in court. Nonetheless, ""it's an arrest, no doubt about that,"" David said. ""He is charged with a criminal offense."" Fort Lauderdale police Capt. Rick Maglione told PolitiFact Florida that ""It is similar to a misdemeanor arrest, but we do not have to take the person physically into custody and they can just show up in court and let a judge decide the case."" We interviewed a few criminal defense lawyers in South Florida not involved in the case and they agreed that the police did indeed arrest Abbott. ""With all due respect to the mayor, it is an arrest,"" said Brian Tannebaum, a Miami criminal defense lawyer. ""The fact that someone is not taken into custody does not make it something other than an arrest. Misdemeanor cases are handled with promises to appear all the time. The officer has discretion to take someone into custody, but even if they don't it is still considered an arrest."" City spokesman Chaz Adams told PolitiFact that although a notice to appear is technically an arrest, ""the mayor has been consistent in saying that Mr. Abbott was not ""arrested and taken into custody."" Abbott faces up to a $500 fine and 60 days in jail for each offense. However, lawyers say it’s unlikely that a judge will throw him behind bars. ""I can’t imagine anyone putting Arnold in jail,"" said Broward public defender Howard Finkelstein. His office is not handling the case, but he has praised Abbott. Abbott’s lawyer filed a motion in Broward court on Nov. 12 that asked a judge to enforce the injunction from the earlier case that allowed Abbott to continue the feedings. The city offered Abbott two alternative sites -- at the city’s aquatic complex near the beach, and at Church by the Sea, located near the beach -- but he rejected both. ""I plan to continue my feedings at the same site I have used for the past 23 years,"" Abbott told PolitiFact Florida in an email. Seiler says it’s not his call what penalty Abbott faces. ""We have to enforce the laws, we have to be consistent,"" Seiler told PolitiFact Florida. ""What the courts do with Mr. Abbott -- that’s up to the courts."" Seiler has defended his city’s reputation for serving the homeless, which includes working with nonprofits to provide services and allowing the county-run Homeless Assistance center to expand. The city’s police department also has a homeless outreach unit. Fort Lauderdale’s law about feeding the homeless is part of a growing national trend. Since 2007, 71 cities have attempted or enacted some type of rules related to food-sharing activities, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless. ""The best solution to the food-sharing issue is to have indoor meal programs available to the homeless three times a day, seven days a week,"" said Michael Stoops, director of community organizing National Coalition for the Homeless. ""If these locations were located conveniently in Downtown Fort Lauderdale, a good number of the homeless would opt to eat inside vs. outside. However, food-sharing with the homeless in public spaces would still be needed."" Our ruling Seiler said that ""no one was taken into custody"" for feeding the homeless. Seiler is correct that Abbott wasn’t taken into custody -- the activist was not handcuffed or taken to jail but was instead given a notice to appear in court. But his carefully worded claim glosses over the fact that Abbott was indeed arrested on more than one occasion for allegedly feeding the homeless in violation of city ordinances, something that leaves Abbott at least theoretically in peril of being sentenced to jail. Seiler’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so" Claim: "No one was taken into custody"" for feeding the homeless."

SOLUTION: "Seiler said that ""no one was taken into custody"" for feeding the homeless. Seiler is correct that Abbott wasn’t taken into custody -- the activist was not handcuffed or taken to jail but was instead given a notice to appear in court. But his carefully worded claim glosses over the fact that Abbott was indeed arrested on more than one occasion for allegedly feeding the homeless in violation of city ordinances, something that leaves Abbott at least theoretically in peril of being sentenced to jail. Seiler’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."

PROBLEM: Paragraph: London’s Metropolitan Police said the company had been charged with seven counts of supplying a medicinal product which was not of the nature or quality specified in the prescription. It was also accused of failing to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that patients were not infected by contaminants. The north London company said in a statement: “As founders of ITH we have every sympathy for all the families affected, regardless of the cause. However, we are disappointed by the decision to charge the company and will vigorously defend this case.”  The police investigation was launched in September 2014 following the death of a baby three months earlier at London’s Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital. The death of a second baby at the same hospital and a third at the Rosie Maternity Hospital in Cambridge, central England, in June 2014 were then also investigated. The inquiry followed an outbreak of a bacterial infection that affected some babies receiving Total Parental Nutrition (TPN), an intravenous feed. The seven babies involved in the investigation, including the three who died, had all received the feed. The investigation established that the cause of death of the first baby could be linked to TPN, although the deaths of the other two were not found to be linked. Five hospitals in total were involved in the investigation, the other three being Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley, Luton and Dunstable Hospital and Lister Hospital in Stevenage, all in central England. ITH Pharma, which was founded in 2008, said it had manufactured more than 1.4-million components of TPN since its launch and was the sole commercial supplier of reactive feeding solutions to the National Health Service. “This product has helped thousands of extremely vulnerable infants survive premature and complex births,” it said. The case is due to start at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London on Dec. 17. Claim: UK police charge pharmaceutical company over hospital baby deaths.

SOLUTION: Police said on Wednesday they had charged pharmaceutical company ITH Pharma with a number of offences as part of an investigation into the deaths and illnesses of seven babies at several hospitals.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The 1981 film For Your Eyes Only was the twelfth in the James Bond series and marked the fifth appearance of Roger Moore as secret agent 007. Like all Bond offerings, the non-stop action was sprinkled with bodacious babes, about one of whom questions subsequently surfaced. Caroline Cossey, one of the “Bond girls” appearing in that film was a transgender woman. Ms. Cossey began life in 1954 as Barry Cossey but later decided to live as a woman. She changed her name to Caroline in 1972, began taking hormone tablets, had breast augmentation surgery, and in 1974 underwent the final sex reassignment surgery (SRS). From about 1979 to 1986 Caroline worked as a fashion model and actress under the name Tula, and she caught a break in 1980 when she was cast in the James Bond film For Your Eyes Only. Shortly after the film’s release in 1981, however, the UK tabloid News of the World “outed” her and disrupted her modeling and acting career. Caroline’s first attempt at marriage, to Count Glauco, an Italian national, was blocked in 1983 by legal complications (under English law she was still considered male). In 1989 she married Elias Fattal in London, but her husband left her shortly after the honeymoon and the marriage was annulled by the High Court (under a ruling that the bride and groom had not been female and male, respectively). Caroline told her story in the 1982 book, Tula: I Am a Woman and published an autobiography, My Story, in 1991; she has resumed her modelling career and is now married to David Finch, a Canadian. But Caroline Cossey was a ‘Bond girl’ in only the most fleeting of ways: She appeared but briefly on screen in For Your Eyes Only, and film credits describe her as “girl at pool,” a designation she shared with ten other actresses. Claim: One of the women in the James Bond film For Your Eyes Only is transgender.

SOLUTION:
Rumors about the real transgender Bond girl have morphed over time, with later versions asserting the woman in question had been one of the primary love interests in For Your Eyes Only. That role was filled by French actress Carole Bouquet, appearing as the vengeful daughter of the scientist the villain had done away with.